JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN. 


THE    LIFE 


OF 


JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOM 


BY 


JOHN   S.  JENKINS, 

AUTHOR   Or  THS   "  HISTORY  OF  THE   WAR   WITH   MEXICO  j"    "  LIFE   OF 
JAMES    K.   POLK,"    ETC.,   ETC. 


Justura  ac  tenacem  propositi  virum, 
Non  civiura  ardor  prava  jubentium, 
Non  vultus  instantia  tyranni, 
Mente  quatit  solida. 

HORAT.  Carm.  iii.  3. 


AUBURN  AND  BUFFALO  : 

JOHN    E.    BEARDSLEY 

185T. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1850,  by 

JAMES    M.  ALDEN. 
In  the  Clerk's  Office  for  the  Northern   District  of  New  York. 


STEREOTYPED   BY   THOMAS    B.    SMITH 
216  WILLIAM   STREET,   N.  T. 


TO     THE 


nf  iotlj 


THIS   VOLUME 


IS  RESPECTFULLY  DEDICATED. 


214 


t 

d 


PREFACE. 


ONE  after  another  of  the  remarkable  men  of  our 
country  has  gone  down  to  the  tomb,  until  the  number 
of  the  distinguished  dead  far  exceeds  that  of  the 
living  who  have  become  illustrious.  The  history 
and  fame  of  the  former  constitute  the  glory  and 
greatness  of  the  country,  and  the  promise  of  the 
latter  is  its  hope  and  admiration.  To  portray  the 
character  of  the  one  is  to  excite  the  emulation  of 
the  other ;  and  to  depict  the  virtues  of  a  single 
individual,  may  be  to  scatter  the  seeds  that  will 
germinate,  and  bud,  and  blossom,  and  bring  forth 
similar  fruit,  in  due  season. 

For  more  than  thirty-five  years,  Mr.  Calhoun  has 
been  one  of  the  most  prominent  statesmen  in  the 
American  Union,  and  during  that  long  period  their 
history  is  woven  together.  No  important  question 
has  been  agitated  since  he  first  entered  Congress, 
in  which  he  has  not  participated,  or  with  which  ha 


PREFACE. 

has  not  in  some  way  or  other  been  connected.  His 
biography,  therefore,  if  executed  as  it  ought,  should 
be  full  of  interest  to  the  American  reader. 

I  have  been  aware,  from  the  first,  of  the  diffi 
culties  and  embarrassments  in  the  way  of  preparing 
a  memoir  that  would  be  acceptable  to  both  of  the 
parties  occupying  extreme  grounds  on  the  sectional 
questions  with  which  Mr.  Calhoun  was  identified. 
It  has  been  my  aim,  however,  to  present  all  things 
truly;  and,  having  done  this,  to  rely  upon  the 
generous  kindness  of  the  public.  It  cannot  be  that 
passion  and  prejudice  will  follow  the  dead,  to 
disturb  the  quiet  slumbers  of  the  grave ;  and  if 
these  are  forgotten,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  jus 
tice  will  be  done  to  the  memory  of  Mr.  Calhoun. 
He  was  emphatically  a  great  man, — a  model  states 
man, — one  of  those  who  visit  us,  like  angels,  "  few 
and  far  between." 

He  lived  in  eventful  times,  and  his  history  is  full 
of  important  incidents.  A  minute  account,  therefore, 
of  the  details  of  his  life  would  require  a  much 
larger  volume  than  the  present.  But  it  is  the  design 
of  this  work  tto  exhibit  his  character  with  sufficient 
distinctness  to  satisfy  the  general  reader,  and  faith 
fully  to  represent  his  course  and  position  with  reference 
to  the  important  questions  that  arose  during  his 


PREFACE.  IX 

public  career.  In  order  to  accomplish,  this  object, 
I  have  found  it  necessary  to  insert  a  number  of  his 
speeches,  that  he  might  be  allowed  to  speak  for 
himself  far  more  ably  and  eloquently  than  I  could 
hope  to  do. 

In  making  the  selections  of  the  speeches,  I  have 
preferred  to  take  those  delivered  on  subjects  of  great 
temporary  importance,  or  which  are  likely  to  possess 
a  permanent  value  from  their  connection  with  the 
federal  constitution  and  its  proper  interpretation. 

No  apology  need  be  offered  for  occupying  so  large 
a  space  with  the  history  of  Nullification.  It  was 
the  great  episode  in  the  life  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  and 
the  principle  of  state  interposition,  or  state  veto,  was 
very  dear  to  him.  "  If  you  should  ask  me  the  word," 
said  he,  "  that  I  would  wish  engraven  on  my  tomb 
stone,  it  is  NULLIFICATION." 


CONTENTS, 


CHAPTER  I. 

PAGK 

Roman  Virtue  and  Integrity — Often  paralleled  in  America — Char 
acter  of  Mr.  Calhoun — His  Reputation — Attachment  of  the  People 
of  South  Carolina  to  him — Influence — Ancestors — His  Father 
—Characteristic  Traits— His  Birth,  .  15 


CHAPTER  II. 

Early  Development  of  Character — His  Education — Enters  College 
— Graduates — Studies  Law — Commences  Practice-"  T  *  .essional 
Reputation — Enters  the  Arena  of  Politics — EleeW  u>  the  State 
Legislature — Services  in  that  Body — Populari  among  his  Con 
stituents — Chosen  a  Member  of  Congress, 25 


CHAPTER  IH. 

Enters  the  House  of  Representatives — Appointed  on  the  Committee 
of  Foreign  Affairs — Speech  on  the  War— His  Character — Stand 
ing — Support  of  Madison's  Administration  and  the  "War  Meas 
ures — The  Restrictive  System — Remarks  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Course 
in  regard  to  the  Embargo — Speech  on  the  Loan  Bill,  .  . 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Reelection  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Results  of  the  "War — The  Commercial 
Treaty — Course  of  Mr.  Calhoun — His  Speech — The  United  States 


XU  CONTENTS. 


PAOB 


Bank— Mr.  Dallas'  BUI— Opposition  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  this  Meas 
ure — Its  Defeat — Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Currency — 
Report  of  a  Bank  Bill— Speech— Passage  of  the  Bill,  .  .  64 


CHAPTER  V. 

Changes  in  Politics — Consistency  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Resolutions  of 
1816 — The  Direct  Tax — Speech — Tariff  Act  of  1816 — Views  of 
Mr.  Calhoun — Principle  of  the  Law — The  Military  Academy — 
The  Compensation  Act — Temporary  Displeasure  of  his  Constitu 
ents — Internal  Improvements — Veto  of  Mr.  Madison,  .  .  100 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Expiration  of  his  Service  in  the  House  of  Representatives — Ap 
pointed  Secretary  of  War — Management  of  the  Affairs  of  the 
Department — Financial  System — Other  Improvements  intro 
duced — Reorganization  of  the  Army — System  of  Fortifications 
— Medical  Statistics — Missouri  Compromise — Tariff  Act  of  1824 
— Internal  Improvements, 140 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Presidential  Election  of  1824 — Mr.  Calhoun  chosen  Vice-President 
— Character  as  Presiding  Officer — Refusal  to  leave  his  Seat  when 
a  Tie  Vote  was  anticipated — Decision  in  regard  to  the  Right  to 
call  to  Order — Opposition  to  the  Measures  of  Mr.  Adams — Re 
election  of  Mr.  Calhoun— The  Tariff  Question— Matured  Opin 
ions — Address, 152 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Nullification — The  Protective  System  introduced — Act  of  1828 — 
Opposition  in  the  Southern  States — State  Interposition  proposed 
— Mr.  Calhoun's  Views — Election  of  General  Jackson — Distribu 
tion  and  Protection  combined — Dissolution  of  the  Cabinet — Dif 
ficulty  between  Mr.  Calhoun  and  General  Jackson — Letter  to 


CONTENTS.  X1U 

rum 

Governor  Hamilton — Convention  in  South  Carolina — Mr.  Cal 

iioun  elected  a  Senator  in  Congress, 1M 

CHAPTER  IX. 

ourney  to  "Washington — Takes  his  Seat  in  the  Senate — Special 
Message  of  the  President — Mr.  Calhoun's  Resolutions — The  Force 
Bill — Speech  against  it — The  Debate — Argument  of  Mr.  Web 
ster — Reply  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Character  of  this  Effort — Passage 
of  the  Compromise  Act — Peaceful  Termination  of  the  Contro 
versy,  246 

CHAPTER  X. 

Removal  of  the  Deposits— Opposition  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  the  Jack 
son  Administration — Course  in  Regard  to  the  Bank — Executive 
Patronage — Reflected  to  the  Senate — Abolition  Excitement — 
Speech  on  the  Reception  of  Abolition  Petitions — Admission  of 
Michigan — Separation  of  the  Government  from  the  Banks — 
Speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun— Reply  to  Mr.  Clay,  .  .  .  •  316 

CHAPTER   XL 

RwaoJuiions  on  the  Subject  of  Abolitionism — Opinions  of  Mr.  Cal 
houn — Assumption  of  State  Debts — Bankrupt  Bill — Case  of  the 
Enterprise — Support  ot  Mr.  Van  Buren — Election  of  Harrison 
and  Tyler — fhe  Public  Lands— Distribution — The  Bank  Bills — 
Defence  ol  the  Veto  Power — Mr.  Clay's  Resolutions — Tariff  of 
1842— Ashburton  Treaty, 379 


CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Oregon  Question — Resignation  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Appointed 

Secretary  of  State — Annexation  of  Texas — Administration  of 

Mr.  Polk — Declines  Mission  to  England — Returns  to  the  Senate 

• — Memphis  Convention — Improvement  of  Harbors  and  Rivers — 

"riumph  of  Free  Trade — War  with  Mexico — Continued  Agita- 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

KIGB 

tion  of  the  Slavery  Question — Southern  Address — Mr.  Clay's 
Plan  of  Compromise — Last  Speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun,    .        .        .395 

CHAPTER  Xin. 

Death  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Funeral  Honors — His  Family — Personal 
Appearance — Character — Habits  in  Private  Life — Mental  Pow 
ers — Style  as  a  Speaker  and  Writer — "Work  on  Government — 
Manner  as  an  Orator — Course  as  a  Statesman — Popularity — 
Memory, 441 


LIFE  OF  JOHN  C,  CALHOUN, 


CHAPTER  I. 

Roman  Virtue  and  Integrity — Often  paralleled  in  America — Character 
of  Mr.  Oalhoun — His  Reputation — Attachment  of  the  People  of  South 
Carolina  to  him — Influence — Ancestors — His  Father — Characteristic 
Traits— His  Birth. 

WHEN  Brennus,  the  Gallic  chieftain,  and  the  dark 
and  uncouth,  but  stalwart  and  intrepid  warriors,  whom 
he  led  forth  from  their  transalpine  homes  down  upon 
the  fair  and  fertile  plains  of  Italy,  entered  the  gates  of 
the  Eternal  City, — and  their  startling  cry  of  "  VCB  me 
tis  !" — woe  to  the  conquered ! — awoke  a  thousand  echoes 
in  her  ancient  streets  and  thoroughfares,  in  her  palaces 
and  her  temples, — her  defeated  soldiery  and  her  af 
frighted  inhabitants  fled  for  refuge  to  the  Capitoline 
Hill,  "that  high  place  where  Rome  embraced  her 
heroes."  But  some  few  of  the  nobler  spirits  of  the  re 
public,  reverencing  the  memories  of  the  past,  cherish 
ing  its  patriotic  impulses,  and  practicing  its  virtues, 
remained  in  the  Forum,  and  seated  in  their  curule 
chairs,  fearlessly  and  calmly  awaited  the  approach  of 
the  enemy. 

Rude  and  unpolished  as  were  the  invaders,  though 


16  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [173& 

reckless  of  danger  and  indifferent  to  peril,  they  were 
instantly  struck  with  astonishment  at  this  exhibition  of 
firmness  and  devotion,  of  patriotism  and  virtue ;  and 
they  regarded  with  awe,  the  sublime  majesty  of  the 
countenances  in  which  dignity  and  determination  were 
so  nobly  blended.  These  Romans  were  the  types  of  a 
once  numerous  class,  whose  character  has  been  held  in 
admiration  for  ages,  in  every  clime  and  among  every 
people  to  whom  their  history  is  known. 

Roman  virtue — that  virtue  which  constituted  the 
bright  peculiar  trait  of  statesmen,  and  soldiers,  and  citi 
zens,  in  the  earlier  and  purer  days  of  republican  sim 
plicity,  and  whose  light,  though  shorn  of  many  of  its 
beams,  was  not  wholly  lost  amid  the  glory  and  splendor 
of  the  Empire,  till  the  throne  of  the  Caesars  had  crum 
bled  into  dust — the  virtue  thus  exemplified  and  thus 
ennobled  in  Rome,  has  been  often  paralleled,  if  not  sur 
passed,  in  the  great  republic  of  the  West.  While  we 
have  in  some  degree  imitated  her  form  of  government, 
we  have  also  copied  the  traits  of  character  which  ren 
dered  her  distinguished  men  so  famous ;  and  it  is  justly 
esteemed  no  small  praise  among  us,  to  be  commended 
for  the  possession  and  practice  of  Roman  virtue  and 
Roman  integrity.  It  is,  too,  a  fit  subject  for  congratu 
lation,  that  our  country,  though  so  young  in  years, 
has  produced  so  many  men  deservedly  entitled  to  this 
high  distinction :  they  have  not  appeared  only  once  in 
a  generation  or  an  age,  but  like  the  branches  of  the 
golden  tree  which  opened  the  portals  of  the  lower  world, 
when  one  is  torn  away  another  is  not  wanting,* — when 

*  Primo  avulso  non  deficit  alter 

Aureua.  Virgil,  Mnd^  ri  148. 


1733.]     ATTACHMENT  OP  SOUTH  CAROLINA.        17 

one  is  numbered  with  the  dead,  another  springs  up  to 
fill  his  place,  to  emulate  his  virtues,  and  to  follow  his 
example. 

Not  the  least  worthy,  and  not  the  least  conspicuous 
among  them,  was  the  subject  of  this  memoir.  For 
nearly  forty  years  he  occupied  a  prominent  place  among 
the  most  eminent  statesmen  of  America.  His  reputa 
tion,  furthermore,  had  crossed  the  Atlantic,  where  he 
had  himself  never  been,  and  had  elicited  the  most 
flattering  encomiums  from  those  high  in  ability  and  in 
station.  At  home,  among  his  own  countrymen,  his  in 
dependence  of  thought,  his  fearlessness  in  the  expression 
of  his  opinions,  and  his  unbending  and  uncompromising 
integrity,  caused  him  to  be  generally  admired  even 
among  those  who  differed  from  him  the  most  widely 
upon  political  questions.  While,  therefore,  his  senti 
ments  with  reference  to  matters  of  public  policy  were 
not  always  cordially  approved,  but  were  oftentimes 
earnestly  opposed,  his  character  and  his  talents  were 
held  in  esteem  in  every  section  of  the  Union,  and  it 
may  be  truly  said  that  his  fame  was  national,  and  was 
bounded  only  by  the  confines  of  our  territory. 

For  much  the  greater  portion  of  the  period  during 
which  he  was  in  public  life,  he  held  a  seat  in  the  legis 
lature  of  his  native  state,  or  represented  her  in  one  or 
other  of  the  two  houses  of  Congress.  To  the  people 
of  South  Carolina  he  was  closely  endeared,  as  well  by 
the  sterling  qualities  of  his  head  and  heart,  as  by  his 
fidelity  in  watching  over  and  protecting  their  interests, 
and  his  long  and  arduous  services  in  the  councils  of  the 
state  and  nation.  Open  and  frank  in  the  avowal  of 
his  sentiments  upon  the  great  questions  that  divided 


18  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1733. 

the  public  mind — prompt  and  energetic — faithful  and 
true — he  commanded  alike  their  respect  and  their  ad 
miration. 

To  most  of  them  personally  a  stranger,  yet  when  his 
name  was  uttered,  it  awoke  many  a  lofty  and  animat 
ing  recollection,  and  around  it  clustered  hosts  of  stir 
ring  associations.  They  looked  up  to  him  as  their  leader 
and  their  head, — they  trusted  in  him  to  carry  them  safe 
through  every  emergency,  and  to  sustain  them  in  every 
crisis.  Did  danger  threaten  them  from  within  or  with 
out,  he  was  invoked  as  the  guardian  genius  who  pos 
sessed  the  power  to  heal  all  dissensions,  and  to  triumph 
over  all  opposition.  Did  the  gathering  clouds  on  the 
political  horizon  forebode  aught  of  disaster,  to  him  they 
applied  as  to  one  who  could  not  be  daunted  by  the 
omens  that  filled  the  souls  of  others  with  terror  and 
awe ;  and  when  the  warning  voice,  the  counsels,  or  the 
admonitions,  of  that  statesman-planter,  were  heard  roll 
ing  down  from  his  distant  home  at  the  foot  of  the  Blue 
Ridge  over  the  lowlands  of  South  Carolina,  few  there 
were  who  did  not  heed  and  obey  them.  Like  a  gallant 
knight  he  was  foremost  in  every  position  of  danger,  and 
when  his  banner  was  unfurled  in  the  midst  of  the  timid 
and  faint-hearted,  they  raised  their  eyes  to  it  in  the 
confidence  of  faith,  and  turned  from  it  full  of  encourage 
ment  and  hope. 

Possessing  such  traits  of  character,  and  uniting  with 
them  a  commanding  intellect,  and  an  indomitable  will, 
it  is  not  surprising  that  he  exerted  an  influence  so  wide- 
spread  and  so  powerful.  "  When  a  firm  decisive  spirit 
is  recognized,"  says  Mr.  Foster,  "  it  is  curious  to  see 
how  the  space  clears  around  a  man,  and  leaves  him 


1733.]  INFLUENCE    AND    MEMORY.  19 

room  and  freedom.  *  *  *  A  conviction  that  he 
understands  and  that  he  wills  with  extraordinary  force, 
silences  the  conceit  that  intended  to  perplex  or  instruct 
him,  and  intimidates  the  malice  that  was  disposed  to 
attack  him.  There  is  a  feeling,  as  in  respect  to  Fate, 
that  the  decrees  of  so  inflexible  a  spirit  must  be  right, 
or  that,  at  least,  they  will  be  accomplished."* 

It  was  so  with  Mr.  Calhoun.  Without  an  effort  on 
his  part,  other  than  the  natural  operations  of  his  mind 
and  character  in  the  progress  of  development,  he  ac 
quired  a  reputation  of  which  his  fellow-citizens  were 
exceedingly  proud,  as  they  well  might  be.  They  soon 
learned  to  love  him,  and  loving,  to  admire  and  revere. 
For  twenty  years  he  was  first  and  foremost  in  their 
affections,  and  the  dearest  hopes  of  thousands  followed 
him  to  the  silence  of  the  tomb.  In  their  hearts  his  mem 
ory  must  long  be  enshrined,  and  the  spot  hallowed  by 
the  presence  of  all  that  remained  of  his  mortal  existence 
must  be  to  them  as  "  holy  ground," — like  Mecca  to  the 
followers  of  the  Prophet,  or  the  meadow  of  Griitli  to 
the  peasantry  of  Switzerland.  It  is  consecrated  earth 
that  contains  beneath  its  bosom 

"  Ashes  which  make  it  holier,  dust  which  is 
Even  in  itself  an  immortality." 

The  paternal  ancestors  of  Mr.  Calhoun  came  origi 
nally  from  Ireland,  that  fruitful  hive  from  which  sprung 
most  of  the  early  inhabitants  of  the  eastern  slopes  of 
the  Alleghany  mountains.  His  grandfather  emigrated 
with  his  family  to  Pennsylvania  in  the  year  1733;  they 
afterward  removed  to  Virginia,  and  in  1756  finally 

*  Essay  on  Decision  of  Character,  Letter  ii. 


20  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [17561 

established  themselves  permanently  in  the  province  of 
South  Carolina,  near  the  base  of  the  Blue  Ridge,  and 
in  the  fine  healthy  region  drained  by  the  tributaries  of 
the  Savannah  river. 

His  father,  Patrick  Calhoun,  was  born  in  Donegal, 
but  was  a  mere  child  when  the  family  left  Ireland. 
Accustomed  from  his  earliest  years  to  sights  and  scenes 
well  calculated  to  heighten  the  natural  daring  of  his 
spirit,  and  to  render  him  courageous  and  self-reliant ; 
familiar  with  hardship  and  privation,  with  war  and 
bloodshed ;  he  was  distinguished  for  his  boldness  and 
intrepidity,  his  determined  energy,  and  his  manly  inde 
pendence, — traits  which  were  reproduced  and  ree'x- 
emplified  in  the  life  and  character  of  his  distinguished 
son.  The  family  were  driven  from  their  temporary 
home  in  Virginia  by  the  hordes  of  ruthless  savages  let 
loose  upon  the  frontier  settlements  in  consequence  of 
the  defeat  of  Braddock,  and  in  the  hostile  encounters 
that  took  place  previous  to  their  removal,  Patrick  was 
old  enough  to  take  a  prominent  part.  He  subsequently 
participated  in  the  frequent  skirmishes  between  the 
white  settlers  of  South  Carolina  and  the  Cherokee  In 
dians  previous  to  and  during  the  Revolution.  For  a 
long  time  he  commanded  a  company  of  rangers,  who 
did  good  service  in  keeping  off  the  marauders  that 
hovered  upon  the  borders  of  the  infant  colony,  seeking 
an  opportunity  to  plunder  and  destroy. 

His  occupation  was  that  of  a  farmer  or  planter,  ana 
he  resided  upon  and  cultivated  the  same  place  where 
his  father's  family  first  settled,  and  which  now  belongs 
to  the  heirs  of  his  youngest  son.  He  was  married  in 
1770  to  a  young  lady,  whose  maiden  name  was  Cald 


1776.]  HIS    FATHER.  21 

well,  and  who  was  a  native  of  Charlotte  county,  Vir 
ginia.  Her  father  was  a  Scotch- Irish  Presbyterian,  and 
was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  settlement  on  Cub  Creek. 

The  elder  Mr.  Calhoun  was  an  industrious  and  enter 
prising  citizen.  To  great  natural  shrewdness  he  added  an 
inquiring  disposition,  and  a  boldness  and  independence 
of  sentiment  that  were  rarely  imitated.  He  thought,  and 
spoke,  and  acted  for  himself.  He  was  a  Whig  in  prin 
ciple  long  before  the  Revolution,  and  when  the  crisis 
came,  he  did  not  hesitate  publicly  to  make  profession  of 
"  the  faith  that  was  in  him."  He  battled  manfully  against 
the  Tories ;  he  contended  with  them  in  speech ;  and  at 
the  head  of  his  rangers  aided  essentially  in  putting  them 
down  with  the  strong  hand.  Both  the  Caldwells  and 
the  Calhouns  were  active  and  zealous  Whigs.  As 
such,  they  were  the  peculiar  objects  of  the  red  man's 
hate  and  the  Tory's  vengeance.  Of  three  of  the  Cald 
wells  able  to  bear  arms  during  the  revolutionary  strug 
gle,  one  was  murdered  by  the  Tories  in  cold  blood,  in 
his  own  yard,  after  his  house  had  been  set  on  fire ;  an 
other  fell  dead  at  the  battle  of  the  Cowpens,  being 
pierced  with  thirty  sabre  wounds  ;  and  the  third  was 
taken  prisoner  by  the  enemy,  and  confined  for  nine 
months  in  a  loathsome  dungeon  at  St.  Augustine. 

Nothing  but  his  stout  arm  and  intrepidity  of  soul, 
saved  Patrick  Calhoun  from  experiencing  a  similar  fate. 
"  Upon  one  occasion," — says  a  memoir  of  his  son,  pub 
lished  by  his  political  friends  during  the  presidential 
canvass  of  1843-4, — "  with  thirteen  other  whites,  he 
maintained  a  desperate  conflict  for  hours  with  the 
Cherokee  Indians,  until  overwhelmed  by  superior  num 
bers,  he  was  forced  to  retreat,  leaving  seven  of  his 


22  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1782. 

companions  dead  upon  the  field.  Three  days  after, 
they  returned  to  bury  their  dead,  and  found  the  bodies 
of  twenty-three  Indian  warriors,  who  had  perished  in 
the  same  conflict.  At  another  time,  he  was  singled 
out  by  an  Indian  distinguished  for  his  prowess  as  a 
chief,  and  for  his  skill  with  the  rifle.  The  Indian  tak 
ing  to  a  tree,  Calhoun  secured  himself  behind  a  log, 
from  whence  he  drew  the  Indian's  fire  four  times  by 
holding  a  hat  on  a  stick  a  little  above  his  hiding-place. 
The  Indian  at  length  exhibited  a  portion  of  his  person 
in  an  effort  to  ascertain  the  effect  of  his  shot,  when  he 
received  a  ball  from  his  enemy  in  the  shoulder,  which 
forced -him  to  fly.  But  the  hat  exhibited  the  traces  of 
four  balls  by  which  it  had  been  perforated.  The  effect 
of  this  mode  of  life  upon  a  mind  naturally  strong  and 
inquisitive  was  to  create  a  certain  degree  of  contempt 
for  the  forms  of  civilized  life,  and  for  all  that  was  mere 
ly  conventional  in  society.  He  claimed  all  the  rights 
which  nature  and  reason  seemed  to  establish,  and  he 
acknowledged  no  obligation  which  was  not  supported 
by  the  like  sanctions.  It  was  under  this  conviction 
that,  upon  one  occasion,  he  and  his  neighbors  went 
down  within  twenty-three  miles  of  Charleston,  armed 
with  rifles,  to  exercise  a  right  of  suffrage  which  had 
been  disputed  :  a  contest  which  ended  in  electing  him 
to  the  Legislature  of  the  state,  in  which  body  he  served 
for  thirty  years.  Relying  upon  virtue,  reason,  and 
courage,  as  all  that  constituted  the  true  moral  strength 
of  man,  he  nttnched  too  little  importance  to  mere  infor- 
uiLiLiun,  and  never  feared  to  encounter  an  adversary 
who,  in  that  respect,  had  the  advantage  over  him :  a 
confidence  which  many  of  the  events  of  his  life  seemed 


1782.]  POLITICAL   VIEWS,  23 

to  justify.  Indeed,  he  once  appeared  as  his  own  advo 
cate  in  a  case  in  Virginia,  in  which  he  recovered  a 
tract  of  land  in  despite  of  the  regularly- trained  dispu 
tants,  who  sought  to  embarrass  and  defeat  him.  He 
opposed  the  Federal  Constitution,  because,  as  he  said, 
it  permitted  other  people  than  those  of  South  Carolina 
to  tax  the  people  of  South  Carolina,  and  thus  allowed 
taxation  without  representation,  which  was  a  violation 
of  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  revolutionary 
struggle. 

"  We  have  heard  his  son  say,  that  among  his  earliest 
recollections  was  one  of  a  conversation  when  he  was 
nine  years  of  age,  in  which  his  father  maintained  that 
government  to  be  best  which  allowed  the  largest  amount 
of  individual  liberty  compatible  with  social  order  and 
tranquillity,  and  insisted  that  the  improvements  in  po 
litical  science  would  be  found  to  consist  in  throwing  off 
many  of  the  restraints  then  imposed  by  law,  and  deemed 
necessary  to  an  organized  society.  It  may  well  be  sup 
posed  that  his  son  John  was  an  attentive  and  eager  audi 
tor,  and  such  lessons  as  these  must  doubtless  have  served 
to  encourage  that  free  spirit  of  inquiry,  and  that  intrepid 
zeal  for  truth,  for  which  he  has  been  so  much  distin 
guished.  The  mode  of  thinking  which  was  thus  en 
couraged  may,  perhaps,  have  compensated  in  some 
degree  for  the  want  of  those  early  advantages  which 
are  generally  deemed  indispensable  to  great  intellectual 
progress.  Of  these  he  had  comparatively  few.  But 
this  was  compensated  by  those  natural  gifts  which 
give  great  minds  the  mastery  over  difficulties  which 
the  timid  regard  as  insuperable.  Indeed,  we  have  here 
another  of  those  rare  instances  in  which  the  hardiness 


24  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.        [1782. 

of  natural  genius  is  seen  to  defy  all  obstacles,  and  de 
velops  its  flower  and  matures  its  fruit  under  circum 
stances  apparently  the  most  unpropitious." 

Patrick  Calhoun  died  in  1795.  His  wife  was  a  wo 
man  of  rare  excellence,  whose  many  virtues  endeared 
ner  to  all  that  knew  her,  and  are  still  held  in  grateful 
remembrance  by  those  who  witnessed  the  evidences  of 
her  worth  and  profited  by  her  kindness.  They  had  five 
children,  four  sons  and  a  daughter,  of  whom  JOHN  CALD 
WELL  CALHOUN  was  the  youngest  save  one.  He  was 
born  in  Abbeville  District,  South  Carolina,  at  the  resi, 
dence  of  his  father,  on  the  18th  of  March,  1782,  and 
was  named  after  his  maternal  uncle,  Major  John  Cald- 
well,  who  was  murdered  by  the  Tories. 


CHAPTER  II. 

Early  Development  of  Character — His  Education — Enters  College- 
Graduates — Studies  Law — Commences  Practice — Professional  Repu 
tation — Enters  the  Arena  of  Politics — Elected  to  the  State  Legisla 
ture — Services  in  that  Body — Popularity  among  his  Constituents — 
Chosen  a  Member  of  Congress. 

BORN  and  nurtured  amid  the  closing  scenes  of  the 
Revolution,  and  when  its  dying  thunders  were  still 
heard  faintly  echoing  in  the  distance,  the  stirring  inci 
dents  of  that  protracted  contest,  and  the  legends  and 
traditions  of  border  warfare,  were  among  the  first  and 
earliest  recollections  of  young  Calhoun.  They  were 
often  recounted  in  his  hearing,  and  left  their  impress 
upon  his  character,  in  its  sternness,  and  what  might 
almost  be  called  its  harshness.  He  inherited,  too,  from 
his  father,  the  active  energy,  firmness  and  determina 
tion,  that  characterized  him,  and  from  his  mother's 
family,  their  ardency  of  feeling,  and  their  high-toned 
and  impulsive  enthusiasm.  When  a  lad  he  was  re 
marked  for  his  thoughtful  disposition,  his  quickness  of 
apprehension,  his  decision  of  character,  and  his  steady 
and  untiring  perseverance  in  the  accomplishment  of 
any  plan  he  had  conceived,  or  in  the  pursuit  of  any 
object  which  he  desired  to  secure. 

The  early  trials  and  struggles,  the  hopes  and  disap 
pointments,  of  those  who  are  successful  in  life,  what- 


26  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1795. 

ever  may  be  the  calling  or  profession,  differ  oftener  in 
kind  than  in  character.  Few  minds  are  so  peculiarly 
constituted  as  not  to  require  to  be  submitted  to  the 
ordeal,  when  in  the  early  stages  of  development.  The 
discipline  of  the  young  is  like  the  task  of  the  primer. 
What  is  unsightly  or  unproductive  is  removed,  in  order 
that  the  thrifty  or  more  promising  shoots  may  grow 
with  greater  vigor,  and  bud  and  blossom  with  in 
creased  luxuriance.  "  It  is  no  doubt  a  true  observa 
tion,"  remarked  Bishop  Patrick,  "  that  the  ready  way 
to  make  the  minds  of  youth  go  awry,  is  to  lace  them 
too  hard,  by  denying  them  their  just  freedom  ;"  but 
when  the  regimen  is  properly  advised  and  faithfully  ob 
served,  it  is  healthful,  and  strengthens  and  invigorates 
the  character  for  the  sterner  and  severer  duties  of  ad 
vanced  years.  Chance  sometimes  fairly  thrusts  her 
favors  upon  those  who  seem  little  inclined  to  profit  by 
them,  but  like  Dead  Sea  fruits,  though  fair  and  tempt 
ing  without,  they  turn  to  dust  and  ashes  within.  For 
tune  is  proverbially  a  blind  goddess,  and  she  has  nevei 
maintained  a  very  high  reputation  for  her  impartiality. 
The  French  have  a  political  maxim,  that  "  Time  is  a 
statesman's  principal  assistant."  This  is  equally  ap 
plicable  to  the  career  of  every  man,  in  boyhood  and  in 
age : — Time,  Patience,  Energy,  and  Perseverance,  like 
the  brothers  in  the  fairy  tale,  find  nothing  so  difficult 
that  it  cannot  be  overcome. 

In  the  life  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  this  truth  is  strikingly  ex 
emplified.  The  advantages  which  he  possessed  in  so 
far  as  an  education  was  concerned,  while  he  remained 
at  home,  are  now  exceeded  by  those  enjoyed  by  the 
child  of  the  humblest  citizen  of  his  native  state.  The 


(795.]  HIS    EDUCATION.  27 

upper  country  of  Virginia  and  the  two  Carolinas  was 
settled  mainly  by  Irish  and  Scotch-Irish  emigrants, — a 
very  different  class  of  people  from  the  more  polished 
and  refined  Huguenots  and  descendants  of  the  Cava 
liers,  who  dwelt  in  the  lower  valleys  of  their  noble 
rivers.  The  former  were  poor  in  this  world's  goods, 
but  rich  in  those  sterling  qualities  of  heart  and  soul 
that  fitted  them  so  well  for  the  hardships  and  priva 
tions  of  a  pioneer  life,  and  which  constituted  a  richer 
legacy  to  their  children  than  the  wealth  secured  by  their 
industry  among  the  hills  and  dales  of  their  forest 
homes.  Among  such  a  people,  the  means  of  instruc 
tion  were,  of  course,  quite  limited,  and  children  were 
taught  the  rudiments  of  learning  principally  by  their 
parents. 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  indebted  for  the  most  part  to  his 
father  and  mother  for  the  information  acquired  in  his 
youth.  There  were  few  or  no  schools  in  the  sparsely 
settled  district  where  they  resided,  and  the  only  branches 
of  education  taught  in  them  were  reading,  writing,  and 
arithmetic.  When  he  was  old  enough  they  sent  hirr- 
to  an  ordinary  country  school,  at  which  he  learned  al 
that  his  teacher  could  communicate.  These  draughts 
from  the  fountain,  turbid  though  it  was,  created  a  thirst 
for  more  ;  but  as  there  was  not  a  single  academy  in  the 
whole  upper  region  of  the  state,  and  none  within  fifty 
miles,  except  in  Columbia  county,  Georgia,  of  which 
Mr.  Waddell,  a  Presbyterian  clergyman  who  had  mar 
ried  his  sister,  was  the  principal ;  and  as  his  father  was 
unwilling,  both  on  account  of  his  limited  means,  and 
of  his  aversion  to  the  learned  professions,  to  send  him 
away  from  home ;  he  reached  the  age  of  thirteen  with- 


28  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALIIOUN.  [1795. 

out  having  added  anything  to  his  stock  of  knowledge, 
except  the  limited  amount  of  information  he  was  able 
to  pick  up  in  conversation  with  others,  and  to  obtain 
from  the  few  books  to  which  he  had  access. 

At  the  age  of  thirteen  he  was  placed  under  the  care 
of  his  brother-in-law,  and  commenced  a  course  of 
study  in  the  higher  branches.  He  had  but  just  made 
a  beginning  in  this  new  occupation,  with  which  he  was 
perfectly  delighted,  when  the  death  of  his  father  took 
place.  His  sister  shortly  after  died,  and  Mr.  Waddell 
immediately  discontinued  his  academy.  John  con 
tinued  to  reside  with  his  brother-in-law;  but  as  the 
latter  was  absent  for  the  greater  part  of  the  time,  en 
gaged  in  the  performance  of  his  clerical  duties,  he  was 
left  to  depend  upon  his  own  resources  for  amusement. 
The  plantation  was  in  a  remote  district,  and  he  had  not 
a  single  white  companion,  with  the  exception,  at  inter 
vals,  of  Mr.  Waddell,  and  an  occasional  visitor.  In 
this  situation,  had  he  fallen  a  victim  to  listlessness  and 
ennui,  it  could  not  have  been  wondered  at.  But  his 
active  mind  required  employment,  and  in  the  house 
he  found  what  proved  to  him  a  rich  mine  of  intellec 
tual  wealth. 

His  brother-in-law  was  the  librarian  of  a  small  circu 
lating  library,  and  to  this  he  at  once  resorted.  No  one 
counselled  or  directed  him  in  the  selection  of  books  for 
perusal,  but  as  if  led  by  instinct,  he  discarded  fiction 
entirely,  and  occupied  himself,  to  the  exclusion  of  all 
lighter  reading,  with  historical  works.  These  were  few 
in  number,  but  he  devoured  them  eagerly.  Rollin's 
Ancient  History ;  Robertson's  Life  of  Charles  V.,  and 
History  of  America;  and  a  translation  of  Voltaire's 


1800.]  FONDNESS    FOR    READING    HISTORY.  29 

Charles  XIL,  first  attracted  his  attention.  He  was 
completely  fascinated  with  the  inexhaustible  store  of 
information  which  the  French  scholar  had  accumu 
lated,  and  admired  the  well-turned  periods  and  graceful 
and  easy  diction  of  Scotland's  great  historian,  while  he 
hung  with  delight  upon  the  thrilling  account  of  the  dar 
ing  exploits  of  the  Swedish  monarch.  Having  dis 
patched  these  volumes,  he  took  up  the  large  edition  of 
Cook's  Voyages, 'Brown's  Essays,  and  Locke  on  the 
Understanding,  the  last  of  which  he  was  unable  to 
finish,  for  the  reason  that  he  had  already  overtasked  his 
strength,  and  his  health  had  become  considerably  im 
paired. 

"All  this  was  the  work  of  but  fourteen  weeks.  So 
intense  was  his  application  that  his  eyes  became  seri 
ously  affected,  his  countenance  pallid,  and  his  frame 
emaciated.  His  mother,  alarmed  at  the  intelligence  of 
his  health,  sent  for  him  home,  where  exercise  and 
amusement  soon  restored  his  strength,  and  he  acquired 
a  fondness  for  hunting,  fishing,  and  other  country  sports. 
Four  years  passed  away  in  these  pursuits,  and  in  atten 
tion  to  the  business  of  the  farm  while  his  elder  brothers 
were  absent,  to  the  entire  neglect  of  his  education. 
But  the  time  was  not  lost.  Exercise  and  rural  sports 
invigorated  his  frame,  while  his  labors  on  the  farm  gave 
him  a  taste  for  agriculture,  which  he  always  retained, 
and  in  the  pursuit  of  which  he  found  delightful  occupa 
tion  for  his  intervals  of  leisure  from  public  duties. 

"  About  this  time  an  incident  occurred  upon  which 
turned  his  after  life.  His  second  brother,  James,  who 
had  been  placed  at  a  counting-house  in  Charleston,  re 
turned  to  spend  the  summer  of  1800  at  home.  John 


30  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1800. 

had  determined  to  become  a  planter ;  but  James,  ob 
jecting  to  this,  strongly  urged  him  to  acquire  a  good 
education,  and  pursue  one  of  the  learned  professions 
He  replied  that  he  was  not  averse  to  the  course  ad 
vised,  but  there  were  two  difficulties  in  the  way  :  one 
was  to  obtain  the  assent  of  his  mother,  without  which 
he  could  not  think  of  leaving  her,  and  the  other  was 
the  want  of  means.  His  property  was  small,  and  his 
resolution  fixed  :  he  would  far  rather  be  a  planter  than  a 
half-informed  physician  or  lawyer.  With  this  determi 
nation,  he  could  not  bring  his  mind  to  select  either 
without  ample  preparation ;  but  if  the  consent  of  their 
mother  should  be  freely  given,  and  he  (James)  thought 
he  could  so  manage  his  property  as  to  keep  him  in  funds 
for  seven  years  of  study,  preparatory  to  entering  his 
profession,  he  would  leave  home  and  commence  his 
education  the  next  week.  His  mother  and  brother 
agreeing  to  his  conditions,  he  accordingly  left  home  the 
next  week  for  Dr.  Waddell's,  who  had  married  again, 
and  resumed  his  academy  in  Columbia  county,  Georgia. 
This  was  in  June,  1800,  in  the  beginning  ot  his  nine 
teenth  year,  at  which  time  it  may  be  said  he  com 
menced  his  education,  his  tuition  having  been  pre 
viously  very  imperfect,  and  confined  to  reading,  writ 
ing,  and  arithmetic,  in  an  ordinary  country  school.  His 
progress  here  was  so  rapid  that  in  two  years  he  entered 
the  junior  class  of  Yale  College,  and  graduated  with 
distinction  in  1804,  just  four  years  from  the  time  he 
commenced  his  Latin  grammar.  He  was  highly 
esteemed  by  Dr.  Dwight,  then  the  president  of  the 
college,  although  they  differed  widely  in  politics,  and 
at  a  time  when  political  feelings  were  intensely  bitter. 


1804.]  ENTERS  COLLEGE.  31 

The  doctor  was  an  ardent  Federalist,  and  Mr.  Calhoun 
was  one  of  a  very  few,  in  a  class  of  more  than  seventy, 
who  had  the  firmness  openly  to  avow  and  maintain  the 
opinions  of  the  Republican  party,  and,  among  others, 
that  the  people  were  the  only  legitimate  source  of  polit 
ical  power.  Dr.  D  wight  entertained  a  different  opinion. 
In  a  recitation  during  the  senior  year,  on  the  chapter 
on  Politics  in  Paley's  Moral  Philosophy,  the  doctor, 
with  the  intention  of  eliciting  his  opinion,  propounded 
to  Mr.  Calhoun  the  question,  as  to  the  legitimate  source 
of  power.  He  did  not  decline  an  open  and  direct 
avowal  of  his  opinion.  A  discussion  ensued  between 
them,  which  exhausted  the  time  allotted  for  the  recita 
tion,  and  in  which  the  pupil  maintained  his  opinions 
with  such  vigor  of  argument  and  success,  as  to  elicit 
from  his  distinguished  teacher  the  declaration,  in  speak 
ing  of  him  to  a  friend,  that  the  young  man  had  talent 
enough  to  be  President  of  the  United  States,  which  he 
accompanied  by  a  prediction  that  he  would  one  day 
attain  that  station."* 

At  the  commencement,  an  English  oration  was  as 
signed  to  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  subject  which  he  selected 
was — "  The  qualifications  necessary  to  constitute  a  per 
fect  statesman" — from  which  it  may  be  inferred  that 
he  had  already  set  his  heart  upon  a  political  career,  and 
that  he  loved  to  contemplate  that  beau  ideal  in  states 
manship,  which  he  afterward  attempted  to  illustrate  in 
his  own  career.  Having  taken  his  degree,  he  com 
menced  the  study  of  the  law,  which  he  regarded  as  the 
stepping-stone  to  the  higher  position  at  which  he  aimed. 
He  spent  three  years  in  his  legal  studies,  and  in  miscel- 

*  Biographical  Sketch  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  1843. 


32  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1807. 

laneous  reading.  For  about  half  this  time,  he  attended 
the  celebrated  law  school  at  Litchfield,  Connecticut, 
under  the  charge  of  Judge  Reeve  and  Mr.  Gould,  and 
at  which  so  many  of  the  most  eminent  members  of  the 
profession  in  the  northern  and  southern  states  received 
their  legal  education.  At  this  school  he  acquired  and 
maintained  a  high  reputation  for  ability  and  application, 
and  in  the  debating  society  formed  among  its  members, 
he  successfully  cultivated  his  talents  for  extemporary 
speaking,  and  in  this  respect  is  admitted  to  have  ex 
celled  all  his  associates. 

On  leaving  Litchfield,  Mr.  Calhoun  repaired  to 
Charleston,  and  entered  the  office  of  Mr.  De  Saussure, 
subsequently  Chancellor  of  South  Carolina,  in  order  to 
familiarize  himself  with  the  statute  laws  of  his  state, 
and  the  practice  of  the  courts.  In  the  office  of  Mr.  De 
Saussure,  and  of  Mr.  George  Bowie,  of  Abbeville,  he 
completed  his  studies.  He  then  presented  himself  for 
examination,  was  duly  admitted  to  the  bar  in  1807,  and 
commenced  practice  in  the  Abbeville  District.  He  im 
mediately  took  a  place  in  the  front  rank  of  his  profes 
sion,  among  the  ablest  and  most  experienced  of  its 
members.  Clients  flocked  around  him,  and  a  lucrative 
practice  was  the  reward  of  his  long  and  severe  course 
of  study.  Had  he  remained  at  the  bar,  his  great  talents 
must  have  enabled  him  to  attain  a  high  standing,  but 
he  left  it  so  soon  that  this  can  only  be  a  matter  of  spec 
ulation.  The  reputation  which  he  acquired  during  the 
short  period  of  his  forensic  career,  was  certainly  an 
enviable  one,  and  augured  most  auspiciously  for  the 
future. 

"  While  he  was  yet  a  student,"  says  the  memoir  be 


1808.]  A    MEMBER    OF    THE    LEGISLATURE.  33 

fore  quoted,  "  after  his  return  from  Litchfield  to  Abbe 
ville,  an  incident  occurred  which  agitated  the  whole 
Union,  and  contributed  to  give  to  Mr.  Calhoun's  life, 
at  that  early  period,  the  political  direction  which  it  has 
ever  since  kept — the  attack  of  the  English  frigate 
Leopard  on  the  American  frigate  Chesapeake.  It  led 
to  public  meetings  all  over  the  Union,  in  which  resolu 
tions  were  passed  expressive  of  the  indignation  of  the 
people,  and  their  firm  resolve  to  stand  by  the  govern 
ment  in  whatever  measure  it  might  think  proper  to 
adopt  to  redress  the  outrage.  At  that  called  in  his  na 
tive  district,  he  was  appointed  one  of  the  committee  to 
prepare  a  report  and  resolutions  to  be  presented  to  a 
meeting  to  be  convened  to  receive  them  on  an  ap 
pointed  day.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  requested  by  the  com 
mittee  to  prepare  them,  which  he  did  so  much  to  their 
satisfaction,  that  he  was  appointed  to  address  the  meet 
ing  on  the  occasion  before  the  vote  was  taken  on  the 
resolutions.  The  meeting  was  large,  and  it  was  the 
first  time  he  had  ever  appeared  before  the  public.  He 
acquitted  himself  with  such  success  that  his  name  was 
presented  as  a  candidate  for  the  state  Legislature  at 
the  next  election.  He  was  elected  at  the  head  of  the 
ticket,  and  at  a  time  when  the  prejudice  against  law 
yers  was  so  strong  in  the  district  that  no  one  of  the 
profession  who  had  offered  for  many  years  previously 
had  ever  succeeded.  This  was  the  commencement  of 
his  political  life,  and  the  first  evidence  he  ever  received 
of  the  confidence  of  the  people  of  the  state — a  confi 
dence  which  has  continued  ever  since  constantly  in 
creasing,  without  interruption  or  reaction,  for  the  third 
of  a  century ;  and  which,  for  its  duration,  universality, 

2* 


84  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1808. 

and  strength,  may  be  said  to  be  without  a  parallel  in 
any  other  state,  or  in  the  case  of  any  other  public 
man. 

"He  served  two  sessions  in  the  state  Legislature. 
It  was  not  long  after  he  took  his  seat  before  he  distin 
guished  himself.  Early  in  the  session  an  informal 
meeting  of  the  Republican  portion  of  the  members  was 
called  to  nominate  candidates  for  the  places  of  Presi 
dent  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Madison  was  nominated  for  the  presidency  without  op 
position.  When  the  nomination  for  the  vice-presi 
dency  was  presented,  Mr.  Calhoun  embraced  the  oc 
casion  to  present  his  opinion  in  reference  to  coming 
events,  as  bearing  on  the  nomination.  He  reviewed 
the  state  of  the  relations  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  and  France,  the  two  great  belliger 
ents  which  were  then  struggling  for  mastery,  and  in 
their  struggle  trampling  on  the  rights  of  neutrals,  and 
especially  ours ;  he  touched  on  the  restrictive  system 
which  had  been  resorted  to  by  the  government  to  pro 
tect  our  rights,  and  expressed  his  doubt  of  its  efficacy, 
and  the  conviction  that  a  war  with  Great  Britain 
would  be  unavoidable.  'It  was/  he  said,  'in  this 
state  of  things,  of  the  utmost  importance  that  the 
ranks  of  the  Republican  party  should  be  preserved  un 
disturbed  and  unbroken  by  faction  or  discord.'  He 
then  adverted  to  the  fact,  that  a  discontented  portion 
of  the  party  had  given  unequivocal  evidence  of  rally 
ing  round  the  name  of  the  venerable  vice-president, 
George  Clinton  (whose  re-nomination  was  proposed), 
and  of  whom  he  spoke  highly ;  but  he  gave  it  as  his 
opinion,  that  should  he  be  nonrunated  and  reflected,  he 


1808.]  HIS    POPULARITY.  35 

would  become  the  nucleus  of  all  the  discontented 
portion  of  the  party,  and  thus  make  a  formidable  divi 
sion  in  its  ranks  should  the  country  be  forced  into  war. 
These  persons,  he  predicted,  would  ultimately  rally 
under  De  Witt  Clinton,  the  nephew,  whom  he  de 
scribed  as  a  man  of  distinguished  talents  and  aspiring 
disposition.  To  avoid  the  danger,  he  suggested  for 
nomination  the  name  of  John  Langdon,  of  New  Hamp 
shire,  of  whom  he  spoke  highly  both  as  to  talents  and 
patriotism. 

"  It  was  Mr.  Calhoun's  first  effort  in  a  public  capacity. 
The  manner  and  matter  excited  great  applause  ;  and 
when  it  is  recollected  that  these  remarks  preceded  the 
declaration  of  war  more  than  three  years,  and  how 
events  happened  according  to  his  anticipations,  it 
affords  a  striking  proof  of  that  sagacity,  at  so  early  a 
period,  for  which  he  has  since  been  so  much  distin 
guished.  It  at  once  gave  him  a  stand  among  the  most 
distinguished  members  of  the  Legislature.  During  the 
short  period  he  remained  a  member,  he  originated  and 
carried  through  several  measures,  which  proved  in 
practice  to  be  salutary,  and  have  become  a  permanent 
portion  of  the  legislation  of  the  state." 

His  course  in  the  Legislature  secured  him  an  ex 
traordinary  degree  of  popularity  and  influence  in  the 
section  of  the  state  in  which  he  resided.  His  constit 
uents  were  especially  proud  of  him,  and  many  there 
were  at  that  early  era  of  his  fortunes,  who  predicted 
for  him  a  brilliant  destiny ;  and,  in  truth,  the  promise 
of  his  life  and  conduct  warranted  these  high  expecta 
tions.  "  Give  a  man  nerve,"  says  an  eloquent  writer, 
"  a  presence,  s\\  ay  over  language,  and,  above  all,  en- 


36  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN,  [1810. 

thusiasm,  or  the  skill  to  stimulate  it ;  start  him  in  the 
public  arena  with  these  requisites,  and  ere  many  years, 
perhaps  many  months,  have  passed,  you  will  either  see 
him  in  high  station,  or  in  a  fair  way  of  rising  to  it."* 

In  none  of  these  essentials  to  success  was  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  wanting,  as  those  who  knew  him  will  promptly 
bear  witness.  He  had  nerve  and  intrepidity,  enthu 
siasm,  the  air  of  one  born  to  command,  and  fine  argu 
mentative  powers ;  and  his  words  were  like  the  verba 
a^dentia  of  Cicero,  captivating  and  convincing,  melt 
ing  all  hearts  and  fairly  burning  into  every  ear  that 
listened. 

As  is  well  known,  the  members  of  the  twelfth  Con 
gress  were  generally  selected  with  particular  reference 
to  the  apprehended  war  with  Great  Britain.  The 
prominent  stand  taken  by  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  Legisla 
ture  had  drawn  public  attention  to  him,  and  the  Repub 
licans  of  his  congressional  district  demanded  his  selec 
tion  as  their  representative.  He  accordingly  presented 
himself  before  the  people  for  their  suffrages,  and  in  the 
fall  of  1810  was  elected  by  a  triumphant  majority  over 
his  opponent. 

*  Francis'  Orators  of  the  Age. 


CHAPTER  III. 

Enters  the  House  of  Representatives — Appointed  on  the  Committee  of 
Foreign  Affairs — Speech  on  the  War — His  Character — Standing- 
Support  of  Madison's  Administration  and  the  War  Measures — The 
Restrictive  System — Remarks  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Course  in  regard  to 
the  Embargo — Speech  on  the  Loan  Bill 

HOWEVER  true  it  may  be  that  the  Jay  treaty  was  the 
best  that  could  have  been  obtained  from  the  British 
ministry  at  the  time  it  was  concluded,  it  is  equally  cer 
tain  that  it  only  relieved  the  administrations  of  Wash 
ington  and  Adams  from  the  difficulties  and  embarrass 
ments  in  our  foreign  relations  against  which  Mr.  Jef 
ferson  was  scarcely  able  to  maintain  himself,  and  which 
at  one  time  threatened  to  overthrow  the  administration 
of  his  successor.  All  the  troublesome  questions  which 
had  been  so  long  postponed  or  evaded  were  inherited 
by  Madison  as  a  legacy,  and  further  delay  in  their  set 
tlement  was  no  longer  possible.  Happiness  and  pros 
perity  smiled  upon  the  home  industry  of  the  country ; 
peace  and  contentment  dwelt  in  all  her  borders  ;  but  the 
dark  shadow  thrown  from  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic 
fell  upon  and  clouded  everything  that  was  so  bright  and 
fair. 

The  first  session  of  the  twelfth  Congress  commenced 
on  the  4th  day  of  November,  1811, — the  two  Houses 


38  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811. 

having  been  called  together,  by  executive  proclamation, 
in  advance  of  the  regular  day  fixed  upon  by  law  for  the 
commencement  of  the  session,  on  account  of  the  threat 
ening  aspect  of  affairs.  Mr.  Calhoun  took  his  seat  in 
the  House  of  Representatives  at  the  opening  of  the  ses 
sion.  He  was  still  a  young  man,  being  only  in  his 
thirtieth  year,  but  he  was  not  entirely  unknown  even 
among  the  many  distinguished  members  of  the  House. 
His  talents  and  the  zeal  and  ability  which  he  had  often 
manifested  in  defending  the  administration,  and  advo 
cating  decisive  measures  of  resistance  in  opposition  to 
the  grasping  policy  of  Great  Britain,  induced  his  ap 
pointment  by  the  then  Speaker,  Henry  Clay,  to  the 
second  place  on  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Affairs.  The 
chairman  of  the  committee  was  Peter  B.  Porter,  of 
New  York. 

Mr.  Calhoun's  debut  as  a  speaker  was  made  on  the 
19th  of  December,  1811,  during  the  debate  on  the  reso 
lutions  reported  from  the  committee  of  which  he  was  a 
member,  in  the  month  of  November  previous,  author 
izing  immediate  and  active  preparations  for  war.  Able 
speeches  in  behalf  of  the  resolutions  had  already  been 
delivered  by  Mr.  Porter  and  Mr.  Grundy,  and  it  de 
volved  on  Mr.  Calhoun  to  reply  to  the  tirade  of  abuse 
and  invective  which  the  eloquent  and  versatile  John 
Randolph  had  poured  out  on  the  policy  shadowed  forth 
in  the  resolutions.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  before  submitted 
a  few  remarks  on  the  Apportionment  Bill,  but  had  not 
attempted  anything  like  a  set  speech.  A  report  of  his 
speech  on  the  resolutions  of  the  committee  has  been 
preserved,  and  it  will  amply  testify  how  well  he  main 
tained  the  reputation  which  had  preceded  him,  and  ren- 


1811.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    WAR.  39 

dered  justice  to  himself  and  to  the  people  whom  he 
represented. 

SPEECH    ON    THE    WAR    RESOLUTIONS. 

MR.  SPEAKER — I  understood  the  opinion  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  differently  from  what  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Ran 
dolph)  has  stated  to  be  his  impression.  I  certainly  understood  that  the 
committee  recommended  the  measures  now  before  the  house  as  a  prep 
aration  for  war ;  and  such,  in  fact,  was  its  express  resolve,  agreed  to, 
I  believe,  by  every  member  except  that  gentleman.  I  do  not  attribute 
auy  wilful  misstatement  to  him,  but  consider  it  the  effect  of  inadvertency 
or  mistake.  Indeed,  the  report  could  mean  nothing  but  war  or  empty 
menace.  I  hope  no  member  is  in  favor  of  the  latter.  A  bullying, 
menacing  system  has  everything  to  condemn  and  nothing  to  recommend 
it — in  expense  it  almost  rivals  war.  It  excites  contempt  abroad  and 
destroys  confidence  at  home.  Menaces  are  serious  things,  which  ought 
to  be  resorted  to  with  as  much  caution  and  seriousness  as  war  itself, 
and  should,  if  not  successful,  be  invariably  followed  by  war.  It  was 
not  the  gentleman  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  that  made  this  a  war 
question.  The  resolve  contemplates  an  additional  regular  force ;  a 
measure  confessedly  improper  but  as  a  preparation  for  war,  but  un 
doubtedly  necessary  in  that  event.  Sir,  I  am  not  insensible  to  the 
weighty  importance  of  this  question,  for  the  first  time  submitted  to  this 
house,  to  compel  a  redress  of  our  long  list  of  complaints  against  one  of 
the  belligerents.  According  to  my  mode  of  thinking,  the  more  serious 
the  question,  my  convictions  to  support  it  must  be  the  stronger  and  more 
unalterable.  War,  in  our  country,  ought  never  to  be  resorted  to  but 
when  it  is  clearly  justifiable  and  necessary ;  so  much  so  as  not  to  require 
the  aid  of  logic  to  convince  our  understanding,  nor  the  ardor  of  elo 
quence  to  inflame  our  passions.  There  are  many  reasons  why  this 
country  should  never  resort  to  it  but  for  causes  the  most  urgent  and 
necessary.  It  is  sufficient  that,  under  a  government  like  ours,  none  but 
such  will  justify  it  in  the  eyes  of  the  people ;  and  were  I  not  satisfied 
that  such  is  the  present  case,  I  certainly  would  be  no  advocate  of  the 
proposition  now  before  the  house. 

Sir,  I  might  prove  the  war,  should  it  follow,  to  be  justifiable,  by  the 
express  admission  of  the  gentleman  from  Virginia ;  and  necessary,  by 
facts  undoubted  and  universally  admitted,  such  as  he  did  not  attempt 


40  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1811 

to  controvert.  The  extent,  duration,  and  character  of  the  injuries  re 
ceived  ;  the  failure  of  those  peaceful  means  heretofore  resorted  to  for 
the  redress  of  our  -wrongs,  are  my  proofs  that  it  is  necessary.  Why 
should  I  mention  the  impressment  of  our  seamen — depredation  on  every 
branch  of  our  commerce,  including  the  direct  export  trade,  continued  for 
years,  and  made  under  laws  which  professedly  undertake  to  regulate 
our  trade  with  other  nations  ? — negotiation,  resorted  to  again  and  again, 
till  it  became  hopeless,  and  the  restrictive  system  persisted  in  to  avoid 
war,  and  in  the  vain  expectation  of  returning  justice  ?  The  evil  still 
continued  to  grow,  so  that  each  successive  year  exceeded  in  enormity  the 
preceding.  The  question,  even  in  the  opinion  and  admission  of  our  op 
ponents,  is  reduced  to  this  single  point :  which  shall  we  do,  abandon  or 
defend  our  own  commercial  and  maritime  rights,  and  the  personal 
liberty  of  our  citizens  employed  in  exercising  them  ?  These  rights  are 
vitally  attacked,  and  war  is  the  only  means  of  redress.  The  gentleman 
from  Virginia  has  suggested  none,  unless  we  consider  the  whole  of  his 
speech  as  recommending  patient  and  resigned  submission  as  the  best 
remedy.  It  is  for  the  house  to  decide  which  of  the  alternatives  ought  to 
be  embraced.  I  hope  the  decision  is  made  already,  by  a  higher  authority 
than  the  voice  of  any  man.  It  is  not  in  the  power  of  speech  to  infuse 
the  sense  of  independence  and  honor.  To  resist  wrong  is  the  instinct 
of  nature ;  a  generous  nature,  that  disdains  tame  submission. 

This  part  of  the  subject  is  so  imposing  as  to  enforce  silence  even  on 
the  gentleman  from  Virginia.  He  dared  not  to  deny  his  country's 
wrongs,  or  vindicate  the  conduct  of  her  enemy.  But  one  part  only  of  his 
argument  had  any,  the  most  remote  relation  to  this  point.  He  would 
not  say  that  we  had  not  a  good  cause  for  war,  but  insisted  that  it  was 
our  duty  to  define  that  cause.  If  he  means  that  this  house  ought,  at  this 
stage  of  its  proceedings,  or  any  other,  to  specify  any  particular  viola 
tion  of  our  rights  to  the  exclusion  of  all  others,  he  prescribes  a  course 
which  neither  good  sense  nor  the  usage  of  nations  warrants.  When  we 
contend,  let  us  contend  for  all  our  rights — the  doubtful  and  the  certain, 
the  unimportant  and  essential.  It  is  as  easy  to  contend,  or  even  more 
so,  for  the  whole  as  for  a  part.  At  the  termination  of  the  contest,  secure 
all  that  our  wisdom,  and  valor,  and  the  fortune  of  war  will  permit. 
This  is  the  dictate  of  common  sense,  and  such,  also,  is  the  usage  of  na 
tions.  The  single  instance  alluded  to,  the  endeavor  of  Mr.  Fox  to  com 
pel  Mr.  Pitt  to  define  the  object  of  the  war  against  France,  will  not 
support  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  in  his  position.  That  was  an  ex- 


1811.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    WAR.  41 

traordinary  war  for  an  extraordinary  purpose,  and  was  not  governed  by 
the  usual  rules.  It  was  not  for  conquest  or  for  redress  of  injury,  but  to 
impose  a  government  on  France  which  she  refused  to  receive — an  object 
so  detestable  that  an  avowal  dare  not  be  made. 

I  might  here  rest  the  question.  The  affirmative  of  the  proposition  is 
established.  I  cannot  but  advert,  however,  to  the  complaint  of  the 
gentleman  from  Virginia,  when  he  was  first  up  on  this  question.  He 
said  he  found  himself  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  supporting  the  negative 
side  of  the  question  before  the  affirmative  was  established.  Let  me  tell 
that  gentleman  that  there  is  no  hardship  in  his  case.  It  is  not  every 
affirmative  that  ought  to  be  proved.  Were  I  to  affirm  that  the  house 
is  now  in  session,  would  it  be  reasonable  to  ask  for  proof  ?  He  who 
would  deny  its  proof,  on  him  would  be  the  proof  of  so  extraordinary  a 
negative.  How,  then,  could  the  gentleman,  after  his  admission,  and 
with  the  facts  before  him  and  the  nation,  complain  ?  The  causes  are 
such  as  to  warrant,  or,  rather,  to  make  it  indispensable  in  any  nation 
not  absolutely  dependent  to  defend  its  rights  by  arms.  Let  him,  then, 
show  the  reason  why  we  ought  not  so  to  defend  ourselves.  On  him, 
then,  is  the  burden  of  proof.  This  he  has  attempted.  He  has  en 
deavored  to  support  his  negative.  Before  I  proceed  to  answer  him 
particularly,  let  me  call  the  attention  of  the  house  to  one  circumstance, 
that  almost  the  whole  of  his  arguments  consisted  of  an  enumeration  of 
the  evils  always  incidental  to  war,  however  just  and  necessary ;  and 
that,  if  they  have  any  force,  it  is  calculated  to  produce  unqualified  sub 
mission  to  every  species  of  insult  and  injury.  I  do  not  feel  myself 
bound  to  answer  arguments  of  that  description,  and  if  I  should  allude  to 
them,  it  will  be  only  incidentally,  and  not  for  the  purpose  of  serious 
refutation. 

The  first  argument  which  I  shall  notice  is  the  unprepared  state  of  the 
country.  Whatever  weight  this  argument  might  have  in  a  question  ol 
immediate  war,  it  surely  has  little  in  that  of  preparation  for  it.  If  our 
country  is  unprepared,  let  us  prepare  as  soon  as  possible.  Let  the 
gentleman  submit  his  plan,  and  if  a  reasonable  one,  I  doubt  not  it  will 
be  supported  by  the  house.  But,  Sir,  let  us  admit  the  fact  with  the 
whole  force  of  the  argument ;  I  ask,  whose  is  the  fault  ?  Who  has  been 
a  member  for  many  years  past,  and  has  seen  the  defenceless  state 
of  his  country,  even  near  home,  under  his  own  eyes,  without  a  single 
endeavor  to  remedy  so  serious  an  evil  ?  Let  him  not  say, "  I  have  acted 
in  a  minority."  It  is  not  less  the  duty  of  the  minority  than  a  majority 


12  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811. 

to  endeavor  to  defend  the  country.     For  that  purpose  principally  we 
are  sent  here,  and  not  for  that  of  opposition. 

We  are  next  told  of  the  expenses  of  the  war,  and  that  people  will 
not  pay  taxes.  Why  not  ?  Is  it  a  want  of  means  ?  What,  with 
1,000,000  tons  of  shipping ;  a  commerce  of  $100,000,000  annually ; 
manufactures  yielding  a  yearly  product  of  $150,000,000,  and  agricul 
ture  thrice  that  amount ;  shall  we,  with  such  great  resources,  be  told 
that  the  country  wants  ability  to  raise  and  support  10,000  or  15,000 
additional  regulars  ?  No  :  it  has  the  ability,  that  is  admitted ;  but  will 
it  not  have  the  disposition  ?  Is  not  our  course  just  and  necessary  ? 
Shall  we,  then,  utter  this  libel  on  the  people  ?  Where  will  proof  be 
found  of  a  fact  so  disgraceful  ?  It  is  said,  in  the  history  of  the  coun 
try  twelve  or  fifteen  years  ago.  The  case  is  not  parallel.  The  ability 
of  the  country  is  greatly  increased  since.  The  whiskey  tax  was  unpop 
ular.  But,  as  well  as  my  memory  serves  me,  the  objection  was  not  so 
much  to  the  tax  or  its  amount  as  the  mode  of  collecting  it.  The  peo 
ple  were  startled  by  the  host  of  officers,  and  their  love  of  liberty 
shocked  with  the  multiplicity  of  regulations.  We,  in  the  spirit  of  im 
itation,  copied  from  the  most  oppressive  part  of  the  European  laws  on 
the  subject  of  taxes,  and  imposed  on  a  young  and  virtuous  people  the 
severe  provisions  made  necessary  by  corruption  and  the  long  practice 
of  evasion.  If  taxes  should  become  necessary,  I  do  not  hesitate  to 
say  the  people  will  pay  cheerfully.  It  is  for  their  government  and 
their  cause,  and  it  would  be  their  interest  and  duty  to  pay.  But  ^ 
may  be,  and  I  believe  was  said,  that  the  people  will  not  pay  taxes,  be 
cause  the  rights  violated  are  not  worth  defending,  or  that  the  defence 
will  cost  more  than  the  gain.  Sir,  I  here  enter  my  solemn  protest 
against  this  low  and  "  calculating  avarice"  entering  this  hall  of  legisla 
tion.  It  is  only  fit  for  shops  and  counting-houses,  and  ought  not  to  dis 
grace  the  seat  of  power  by  its  squalid  aspect.  Whenever  it  touches 
sovereign  power,  the  nation  is  ruined.  It  is  too  short-sighted  to  defend 
itself.  It  is  a  compromising  spirit,  always  ready  to  yield  a  part  to 
save  the  residue.  It  is  too  timid  to  have  in  itself  the  laws  of  self- 
preservation.  Sovereign  power  is  never  safe  but  under  the  shield  of 
honor.  There  is,  sir,  one  principle  necessary  to  make  us  a  great  peo 
ple — to  produce,  not  the  form,  but  real  spirit  of  union,  and  that  is  to 
protect  every  citizen  in  the  lawful  pursuit  of  his  business.  He  will 
then  feel  that  he  is  backed  by  the  government — that  its  arm  is  his  arm. 
He  then  will  rejoice  in  its  increased  strength  and  prosperity.  Protec- 


1811.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    WAR.  43 

tion  and  patriotism  are  reciprocal.  This  is  the  way  which  has  led 
nations  to  greatness.  Sir,  I  am  not  versed  in  this  calculating  policy, 
and  will  not,  therefore,  pretend  to  estimate  in  dollars  and  cents  the 
value  of  national  independence.  I  cannot  measure  in  shillings  and 
pence  the  misery,  the  stripes,  and  the  slavery  of  our  impressed  sea 
men  ;  nor  even  the  value  of  our  shipping,  commercial  and  agricultural 
losses,  under  the  orders  in  council  and  the  British  system  of  blockade. 
In  thus  expressing  myself,  I  do  not  intend  to  condemn  any  prudent 
estimate  of  the  means  of  a  country  before  it  enters  on  a  war.  That  is 
wisdom,  the  other  folly.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  not  failed 
to  touch  on  the  calamity  of  war,  that  fruitful  source  of  declamation,  by 
which  humanity  is  made  the  advocate  of  submission.  If  he  desires  to 
repress  the  gallant  ardor  of  our  countrymen  by  such  topics,  let  me 
inform  him  that  true  courage  regards  only  the  cause ;  that  it  is  just 
and  necessary,  and  that  it  contemns  the  sufferings  and  dangers  of  war. 
If  he  really  wishes  well  to  the  cause  of  humanity,  let  his  eloquence  bo 
addressed  to  the  British  minister,  and  not  the  American  Congress. 
Tell  them  that,  if  they  persist  in  such  daring  insult  and  outrage  to  a 
neutral  nation,  however  inclined  to  peace,  it  will  be  bound  by  honor 
and  safety  to  resist;  and  their  patience  and  endurance,  however  great, 
will  be  exhausted ;  that  the  calamity  of  war  will  ensue,  and  that  they, 
and  not  we,  in  the  opinion  of  the  world,  will  be  answerable  for  all  its 
devastation  and  misery.  Let  a  regard  to  the  interest  of  humanity  stay 
the  hand  of  injustice,  and  my  life  on  it,  the  gentleman  will  not  find  it 
difficult  to  dissuade  his  countrymen  from  rushing  into  the  bloody  scenes 
of  war. 

We  are  next  told  of  the  danger  of  war.  We  are  ready  to  acknowl 
edge  its  hazard  and  misfortune,  but  I  cannot  think  that  we  have  any 
extraordinary  danger  to  apprehend,  at  least  none  to  warrant  an  acqui 
escence  in  the  injuries  we  have  received.  On  the  contrary,  I  believe 
no  war  would  be  less  dangerous  to  internal  peace  or  the  safety  of  the 
country.  But  we  are  told  of  the  black  population  of  the  Southern 
States.  As  far  as  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  speaks  of  his  own  per 
sonal  knowledge,  I  shall  not  question  the  correctness  of  his  statement. 
I  only  regret  that  such  is  the  state  of  apprehension  in  his  part  of  the 
country.  Of  the  southern  section,  I  too  have  some  personal  knowl 
edge,  and  can  say  that  in  South  Carolina  no  such  fears,  in  any  part,  are 
felt.  But,  sir,  admit  the  gentleman's  statement :  will  a  war  with  Great 
Britain  increase  the  danger  ?  Will  the  country  be  less  able  to  suppress 


44  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811. 

insurrections  ?  Had  we  anything  to  fear  from  that  quarter — which  I 
do  not  believe — in  my  opinion,  the  period  of  the  greatest  safety  is 
during  a  war,  unless,  indeed,  the  enemy  should  make  a  lodgment  in 
the  country.  It  is  in  war  that  the  country  would  be  most  on  its  guard, 
our  militia  the  best  prepared,  and  the  standing  army  the  greatest. 
Even  in  our  Revolution,  no  attempts  were  made  at  insurrection  by  that 
portion  of  our  population  ;  and,  however  the  gentleman  may  alarm 
himself  with  the  disorganizing  effects  of  French  principles,  I  cannot 
think  our  ignorant  blacks  have  felt  much  of  their  baneful  influence.  I 
dare  say  more  than  one  half  of  them  never  heard  of  the  French  Rev 
olution. 

But  as  great  as  he  regards  the  danger  from  our  slaves,  the  gentle 
man's  fears  end  not  there — the  standing  army  is  not  less  terrible  to 
him.  Sir,  I  think  a  regular  force,  raised  for  a  period  of  actual  hostili 
ties,  cannot  properly  be  called  a  standing  army.  There  is  a  just  dis 
tinction  between  such  a  force  and  one  raised  as  a  permanent  peace 
establishment.  Whatever  would  be  the  composition  of  the  latter,  I 
hope  the  former  will  consist  of  some  of  the  best  materials  of  the 
country.  The  ardent  patriotism  of  our  young  men,  and  the  liberal 
bounty  in  land  proposed  to  be  given,  will  impel  them  to  join  their  coun 
try's  standard,  and  to  fight  her  battles.  They  will  not  forget  the  citi 
zen  in  the  soldier,  and,  in  obeying  their  officers,  learn  to  contemn  their 
government  and  Constitution.  In  our  officers  and  soldiers  we  will  find 
patriotism  no  less  pure  and  ardent  than  in  the  private  citizen  ;  but  if 
they  should  be  as  depraved  as  has  been  represented,  what  have  we  to 
fear  from  25,000  or  30,000  regulars?  Where  will  be  the  boasted 
militia  of  the  gentleman  ?  Can  1,000,000  of  militia  be  overpowered 
by  30,000  regulars  ?  If  so,  how  can  we  rely  on  them  against  a  foe  in 
vading  our  country  ?  Sir,  I  have  no  such  contemptuous  idea  of  our 
militia :  their  untaught  bravery  is  sufficient  to  crush  all  foreign  and  in 
ternal  attempts  on  their  country's  liberties. 

.But  we  have  not  yet  come  to  the  end  of  the  chapter  of  dangers. 
The  gentleman's  imagination,  so  fruitful  on  this  subject,  conceives  that 
our  Constitution  is  not  calculated  for  war,  and  that  it  cannot  stand  its 
rude  shock.  Can  that  be  so  ?  If  so,  we  must  then  depend  upon  the 
commiseration  or  contempt  of  other  nations  for  our  existence.  The 
Constitution,  then,  it  seems,  has  failed  in  an  essential  object :  "  to  pro 
vide  for  the  common  defence."  No,  says  the  gentleman,  it  is  competent 
to  a  defensive,  but  not  an  offensive  war.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to 


1811.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    WAR.  45 

expose  the  fallacy  of  this  argument.  Why  make  the  distinction  in  this 
case  ?  Will  he  pretend  to  say  that  this  is  an  offensive  war — a  war  of 
conquest?  Yes,  the  gentleman  has  ventured  to  make  this  assertion, 
and  for  reasons  no  less  extraordinary  than  the  assertion  itself.  He 
says,  our  rights  are  violated  on  the  ocean,  and  that  these  violations 
affect  our  shipping  and  commercial  rights,  to  which  the  Canadas  have 
no  relation.  The  doctrine  of  retaliation  has  been  much  abused  of  late, 
by  an  unreasonable  extension  of  its  meaning.  We  have  now  to  wit 
ness  a  new  abuse :  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  has  limited  it  down  to 
a  point.  By  his  rule,  if  you  receive  a  blow  on  the  breast,  you  dare  not 
return  it  on  the  head ;  you  are  obliged  to  measure  and  return  it  on  the 
precise  point  on  which  it  was  received.  If  you  do  not  proceed  with 
this  mathematical  accuracy,  it  ceases  to  be  self-defence — it  becomes  an 
unprovoked  attack. 

In  speaking  of  Canada,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  introduced  the 
name  of  Montgomery  with  much  feeling  and  interest.  Sir,  there  is 
danger  in  that  name  to  the  gentleman's  argument.  It  is  sacred  to  hero 
ism  !  it  is  indignant  of  submission  !  It  calls  our  memory  back  to  the 
time  of  our  Revolution — to  the  Congress  of  1774  and  1775.  Suppose  a 
member  of  that  day  had  rose  and  urged  all  the  arguments  which  we 
have  heard  on  this  occasion — had  told  that  Congress  your  contest  is 
about  the  right  of  laying  a  tax — that  the  attempt  on  Canada  had  noth 
ing  to  do  with  it — that  the  war  would  be  expensive — that  danger  and 
devastation  would  overspread  our  country — and  that  the  power  of 
Great  Britain  was  irresistible.  With  what  sentiment,  think  you,  would 
such  doctrines  have  been  then  received  ?  Happy  for  us,  they  had  no 
force  at  that  period  of  our  country's  glory.  Had  such  been  acted  on, 
this  hall  would  never  have  witnessed  a  great  people  convened  to  de 
liberate  for  the  general  good ;  a  mighty  empire,  with  prouder  prospects 
than  any  nation  the  sun  ever  shone  on,  would  not  have  risen  in  the 
West.  ISTo !  we  would  have  been  base,  subjected  colonies,  governed 
by  that  imperious  rod  which  Britain  holds  over  her  distant  provinces. 

The  gentleman  attributes  the  preparation  for  war  to  everything  but 
its  true  cause.  He  endeavors  to  find  it  in  the  probable  rise  in  the  price 
of  hemp.  He  represents  the  people  of  the  Western  States  as  willing 
to  plunge  our  country  into  war  for  such  interested  and  base  motives. 
I  will  not  reason  this  point.  I  see  the  cause  of  their  ardor,  not  in 
such  unworthy  motives,  but  in  their  known  patriotism  and  disinter 
estedness. 


46  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811 

No  less  mercenary  is  the  reason  which  he  attributes  to  the  Southern 
States.  He  says  that  the  Non-importation  Act  has  reduced  cotton  to 
nothing,  which  has  produced  a  feverish  impatience.  Sir,  I  acknowledge 
the  cotton  of  our  plantations  is  worth  but  little,  but  not  for  the  cause 
assigned  by  the  gentleman.  The  people  of  that  section  do  not  reason 
as  he  does  ;  they  do  not  attribute  it  to  the  efforts  of  their  government 
to  maintain  the  peace  and  independence  of  their  country :  they  see  in 
the  low  price  of  their  produce  the  hand  of  foreign  injustice ;  they  know 
well,  without  the  market  of  the  Continent,  the  deep  and  steady  current 
of  our  supply  will  glut  that  of  Great  Britain.  They  are  not  prepared 
for  the  colonial  state  to  which  again  that  power  is  endeavoring  to  re* 
duce  us.  The  manly  spirit  of  that  section  will  not  submit  to  be  regula 
ted  by  any  toieign  power. 

The  love  of  France  and  the  hatred  of  England  have  also  been  assigned 
as  the  cause  of  the  present  measure.  France  has  not  done  us  justice, 
says  the  gentleman  from  Virginia,  and  how  can  we,  without  partiality, 
resist  the  aggressions  of  England  ?  I  know,  Sir,  we  have  still  cause  of 
complaint  against  France,  but  it  is  of  a  different  character  from  that 
against  England.  She  professes  now  to  respect  our  rights ;  and  there 
cannot  be  a  reasonable  doubt  but  that  the  most  objectionable  parts  of 
her  decrees,  as  far  as  they  respect  us,  are  repealed.  We  have  already 
formally  acknowledged  this  to  be  a  fact.  But  I  protest  against  the 
principle  from  which  his  conclusion  is  drawn.  It  is  a  novel  doctrine, 
and  nowhere  avowed  out  of  this  house,  that  vou  cannot  select  your  an 
tagonist  without  being  guilty  of  partiality.  Sir,  when  two  invade  your 
rights,  you  may  resist  both,  or  either,  at  your  pleasure.  The  selection 
is  regulated  by  prudence,  and  not  by  right.  The  stale  imputation  of 
partiality  for  France  is  better  calculated  for  the  columns  of  a  newspaper 
than  for  the  walls  of  this  house. 

The  gentleman  from  Virginia  is  at  a  loss  to  account  for  what  he  calls 
our  hatred  to  England.  He  asks,  how  can  we  hate  the  country  of 
Locke,  of  Newton,  Hampden,  and  Chatham ;  a  country  having  the  same 
language  and  customs  with  ourselves,  and  descended  from  a  common 
ancestry  ?  Sir,  the  laws  of  human  affections  are  steady  and  uniform. 
If  we  have  so  much  to  attach  us  to  that  country,  powerful  indeed  must 
be  the  cause  which  has  overpowered  it.  Yes,  there  is  a  cause  strong 
enough  ;  not  that  occult,  courtly  affection,  which  he  has  supposed  to  be 
entertained  for  France,  but  continued  and  unprovoked  insult  and  injury: 
a  cause  so  manifest  that  lie  had  to  exert  much  ingenuity  to  overlook  it. 


1811.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    WAR.  47 

But  the  gentleman,  in  his  eager  admiration  of  England,  has  not  been 
sufficiently  guarded  in  his  argument.  Has  he  reflected  on  the  cause  of 
that  admiration  ?  Has  he  examined  the  reasons  for  our  high  regard  for 
her  Chatham  ?  It  is  his  ardent  patriotism — his  heroic  courage,  which 
could  not  brook  the  least  insult  or  injury  offered  to  his  country,  but 
thought  that  her  interest  and  her  honor  ought  to  be  vindicated,  be  the 
hazard  and  expense  what  they  might.  I  hope,  when  we  are  called  on 
to  admire,  we  shall  also  be  asked  to  imitate.  I  hope  the  gentleman 
does  not  wish  a  monopoly  of  those  great  virtues  for  England. 

The  balance  of  power  has  also  been  introduced  as  an  argument  for 
submission.  England  is  said  to  be  a  barrier  against  the  military  des 
potism  of  France.  There  is,  Sir,  one  great  error  in  our  legislation ;  we 
are  ready,  it  would  seem  from  this  argument,  to  watch  over  the  interests 
of  foreign  nations,  while  we  grossly  neglect  our  own  immediate  concerns. 
This  argument,  drawn  from  the  balance  of  power,  is  well  calculated 
for  the  British  Parliament,  but  is  not  at  all  suited  to  the  American 
Congress.  Tell  the  former  that  they  have  to  contend  with  a  mighty 
power,  and  if  they  persist  in  injury  and  insult  to  the  American  people,  they 
will  compel  them  to  throw  their  weight  into  the  scale  of  their  enemy. 
Paint  the  danger  to  them,  and  if  they  will  desist  from  injuring  us,  I  an 
swer  for  it,  we  will  not  disturb  the  balance  of  power.  But  it  is  absurd 
for  us  to  talk  about  it,  while  they,  by  their  conduct,  smile  with  con 
tempt  at  what  they  regard  as  our  simple,  good-natured  vanity.  If, 
however,  in  the  contest,  it  should  be  found  that  they  underrate  us, 
which  I  hope  and  believe,  and  that  we  can  affect  the  balance  of  power, 
it  will  not  be  difficult  for  us  to  obtain  such  terms  as  our  rights  demand. 

I,  Sir,  will  now  conclude,  by  adverting  to  an  argument  of  the  gentle 
man  used  in  debate  on  a  preceding  day.  He  asked,  why  not  declare 
war  immediately  ?  The  answer  is  obvious — because  we  are  not  yet 
prepared.  But,  says  the  gentleman,  such  language  as  is  held  here 
will  provoke  Great  Britain  to  commence  hostilities.  I  have  no  such 
fears.  She  knows  well  that  such  a  course  would  unite  all  parties  here 
— a  thing  which,  above  all  others,  she  most  dreads.  Besides,  such  has 
been  our  past  conduct,  that  she  will  still  calculate  on  our  patience  and 
submission  till  war  is  actually  commenced. 

If  any  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  friends  had  previously  been 
inclined  to  doubt  his  ability  to  take  and  maintain  a 
position  among  the  ablest  members  in  the  House,  this 


48  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811. 

speech  must  have  served  to  dissipate  all  their  fears.  It 
was  a  favorite  maxim  of  Napoleon's,  that  "  it  is  the 
first  step  which  is  difficult."  This  is  as  true  in  politics 
as  in  war, — in  the  life  of  a  statesman  as  in  the  career 
of  a  warrior.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  now  taken  the  first 
step,  and  the  pathway  to  distinction  lay  open  and  plain 
before  him :  it  was  not,  indeed,  free  from  difficulties 
and  embarrassments — for  there  are  always  thorns  to 
tear  and  wound  mingled  with  the  roses  that  charm  the 
eye  with  their  beauty  and  refresh  the  wearied  senses 
with  their  fragrance — but  in  the  distance  it  presented 
the  bright  promise  of  an  abundant  harvest  of  fame. 

Among  his  associates  in  the  House  of  Represen 
tatives  were  many  of  the  ablest  men  in  the  nation, 
who  had  either  already  become  distinguished,  or  were 
advancing  with  rapid  strides  on  the  road  to  greatness. 
"In  all  the  Congresses  with  which  I  have  had  any  ac 
quaintance  since  my  entry  into  the  service  of  the 
federal  government,"  said  Mr.  Clay. — "  in  none,  in  my 
opinion,  has  been  assembled  such  a  galaxy  of  eminent 
and  able  men  as  were  those  Congresses  which  declared 
the  war,  and  which  immediately  followed  the  peace."* 
First  and  foremost  among  them  was  the  Speaker  him 
self — Henry  Clay,  of  Kentucky — the  eloquent  and  im 
passioned  orator;  and  beside  him  there  were  James 
Fisk  of  Vermont,  the  honest  and  independent ;  Peter 
B.  Porter,  of  New  York,  the  chivalrous  and  high- 
minded  ;  John  Randolph,  the  talented  and  eccentric ; 
Langdon  Cheves  and  William  Lowndes,  the  eminent 
and  able  colleagues  of  Mr.  Calhoun ;  Felix  Grundy, 
of  Tennessee,  the  skilful  debater ;  Nathaniel  Macon, 

*  Remarks  of  Mr.  Clay  in  the  IT.  S.  Senate,  April  1,  185A 


1811.]  STANDING    IN    CONGRESS.  49 

the  independent  and  fearless,  but  often  impracticable 
politician ;  Josiah  Quincy  of  Massachusetts,  the  ac 
complished  but  vindictive  partisan;  and  Timothy 
Pitkin  of  Connecticut,  the  industrious  and  conscien 
tious. 

The  maiden  effort  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  not  merely 
well  received.  Expressions  of  approbation  were  heard 
on  every  side,  and  it  was  as  generally  commended  for 
its  ability  and  eloquence,  as  for  the  patriotism  of  its 
sentiments.  In  allusion  to  this  speech,  and  to  the 
arguments  offered  in  reply  to  Mr.  Randolph,  the  ex 
perienced  editor  of  the  Richmond  Enquirer,  Thomas 
Ritchie,  with  much  justice  remarked  :  "  Mr.  Calhoun 
is  clear  and  precise  in  his  reasoning,  marching  up 
directly  to  the  object  of  his  attack,  and  felling  down 
the  errors  of  his  opponent  with  the  club  of  Hercules ; 
not  eloquent  in  his  tropes  and  figures,  but,  like  Fox,  in 
the  moral  elevation  of  his  sentiments ;  free  from  per 
sonality,  yet  full  of  those  fine  touches  of  indignation, 
which  are  the  severest  cut  to  a  man  of  feeling.  His 
speech,  like  a  fine  drawing,  abounds  in  those  lights  and 
shades  which  set  off  each  other  :  the  cause  of  his  coun 
try  is  robed  in  light,  while  her  opponents  are  wrapped 
in  darkness.  It  were  a  contracted  wish  that  Mr.  Cal 
houn  were  a  Virginian ;  though,  after  the  quota  she  has 
furnished  with  opposition  talent,  such  a  wish  might  be 
forgiven  us.  We  beg  leave  to  participate,  as  Ameri 
cans  and  friends  of  our  country,  in  the  honors  of  South 
Carolina.  We  hail  this  young  Carolinian  as  one  of  the 
master-spirits  who  stamp  their  names  upon  the  age  in 
which  they  live." 

Having  made  one  successful  effort,  Mr.  Calhoun  did 

3 


50  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1812, 

not  sit  down  in  inglorious  ease  to  repose  on  the  laurels 
he  had  gained,  but  with  increased  ardor  and  eagerness 
pressed  forward  in  the  race.  Like  the  young  eaglet 
which  had  for  the  first  time  ventured  into  the  clouds 
and  returned  in  safety  to  its  eyry,  he  purposed  to  take 
a  still  higher  and  prouder  flight.  Whatever  of  appli 
cation  and  industry  were  necessary  to  ensure  his  suc 
cess  in  the  career  upon  which  he  had  fairly  embarked, 
were  not  lacking.  Action — which  the  great  master  of 
oratory  declared  to  be  so  essential  to  the  successful 
orator — was  in  and  a  part  of  his  character,  and  genius, 
like  the  spear  of  Ithuriel,  had  imparted  to  it  an  almost 
unearthly  fire. 

Republican  principles  were  firmly  rooted  in  the 
mind  of  Mr.  Calhoun, — too  firmly  to  be  swerved  from 
maintaining  them,  as  he  thought,  in  their  pristine  vigor 
and  purity,  by  any  considerations  of  mere  party  expe 
diency.  Nature  never  designed  him  for  a  partisan. 
He  professed  to  belong  to  the  Republican  party,  and 
supported  its  measures,  where  he  did  not  regard  them 
as  conflicting  with  its  principles,  in  all  honesty  and 
faith.  But  there  was  nothing  grovelling  in  his  dispo 
sition.  He  could  not  be  fettered  by  political  ties  ;  they 
were  regarded,  perhaps,  when  his  judgment  and  his 
conscience  approved  what  they  required,  but  when 
more  was  demanded  they  were  powerless  as  the  withes 
of  the  Philistines  against  the  lusty  strength  of  Samson 

At  an  early  period  in  his  first  session  he  acquired  a 
highly  honorable  reputation  for  his  fearless  and  inde 
pendent  conduct;  and  this  he  never  lost  even  amid 
the  many  trying  scenes  of  his  subsequent  life. 

To  the  administration  of  Mr.  Madison  he  in  the 


1812.]  THE    KILSTMCIFVE    S\  STEM.  51 

main  yielded  a  cordial  and  hearty  support,  not  because 
he  was  attracted  or  awed  by  the  influence  of  power, 
or  seduced  by  the  blandishments  of  executive  favor 
and  patronage,  but  simply  for  the  reason  that  all  its 
more  prominent  measures  accorded  with  his  own  con 
victions  and  opinions  with  respect  to  the  true  policy 
of  the  country.  Encouraged  by  the  animating  elo 
quence  of  Mr.  Calhoun, — of  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Porter,  and 
Mr.  Grundy, — a  bolder  and  more  defiant  tone  was  as 
sumed  by  the  Republican  members  of  Congress  at  the 
session  of  1811-12.  Bills  providing  for  the  enlistment 
of  twenty  thousand  men  in  the  regular  army ;  for  re 
pairing  and  equipping  the  frigates  in  ordinary  and 
building  new  vessels  ;  authorizing  the  President  to  ac 
cept  the  services  of  fifty  thousand  volunteers ;  and  re 
quiring  the  executives  of  the  several  states  and  terri 
tories  to  hold  their  respective  quotas  of  one  hundred 
thousand  men  fully  organized,  armed  and  equipped,  in 
readiness  to  march  at  a  moment's  warning,  were  duly 
passed  with  the  approbation  and  vote  of  Mr.  Calhoun ; 
and  in  June,  1812,  with  the  whole  delegation  from 
South  Carolina,  he  supported  the  declaration  of  war. 

In  regard  to  the  non-importation  and  embargo  acts, 
or  what  is  generally  known  as  the  restrictive  system, 
Mr.  Calhoun  differed  from  the  administration  and  from 
a  great  majority  of  his  political  friends.  He  opposed 
with  great  earnestness  the  continuance  of  the  system, 
and  in  a  speech  distinguished  by  all  the  traits  peculiar 
to  his  style  of  oratory,  set  forth  the  grounds  of  his 
opposition  with  great  clearness  and  cogency.  "  The 
restrictive  system,"  he  said,  "  as  a  mode  of  resistance, 
or  as  a  means  of  obtaining  redress,  has  never  been  a 


52  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1813. 

favorite  one  with  me.  I  wish  not  to  censure  the  mo 
tives  which  dictated  it,  or  attribute  weakness  to  those 
who  first  resorted  to  it  for  a  restoration  of  our  rights. 
But,  Sir,  I  object  to  the  restrictive  system  because  it 
does  not  suit  the  genius  of  the  people,  or  that  of  our 
government,  or  the  geographical  character  of  our 
country.  We  are  a  people  essentially  active ;  I  may 
say  we  are  preeminently  so.  No  passive  system  can 
suit  such  a  people ;  in  action  superior  to  all  others,  in 
patient  endurance  inferior  to  none.  Nor  does  it  suit 
the  genius  of  our  government.  Our  government  is 
founded  on  freedom,  and  hates  coercion.  To  make 
the  restrictive  system  effective,  requires  the  most  arbi 
trary  laws.  England,  with  the  severest  penal  statutes 
has  not  been  able  to  exclude  prohibited  articles  ;  and 
Napoleon,  with  all  his  power  and  vigilance,  was  obliged 
to  resort  to  the  most  barbarous  laws  to  enforce  his 
Continental  system.  *  *  *  *  But  there  are  other  ob 
jections  to  the  system.  It  renders  government  odious. 
The  farmer  inquires  why  he  gets  no  more  for  his  pro 
duce,  and  he  is  told  it  is  owing  to  the  embargo,  or  com 
mercial  restrictions.  In  this  he  sees  only  the  hand  of 
his  own  government,  and  not  the  acts  of  violence  and 
injustice  which  this  system  is  intended  to  counteract. 
His  censures  fall  on  the  government.  This  is  an  un 
happy  state  of  the  public  mind,  and  even,  I  might  say, 
in  a  government  resting  essentially  on  public  opinion, 
a  dangerous  one.  In  war  it  is  different.  Its  priva 
tion,  it  is  true,  may  be  equal  or  greater ;  but  the  public 
mind,  under  the  strong  impulses  of  that  state  of  things, 
becomes  steeled  against  sufferings.  The  difference  is 
almost  infinite  between  the  passive  and  active  state  of 


1813.]  HIS    SPEECH.  53 

the  mind.  Tie  down  a  hero,  and  he  feels  the  puncture 
of  a  pin :  throw  him  into  battle,  and  he  is  almost  in 
sensible  to  vital  gashes.  So  in  war.  Impelled  alter 
nately  by  hope  and  fear,  stimulated  by  revenge,  de 
pressed  by  shame,  or  elevated  by  victory,  the  people 
become  invincible.  No  privation  can  shake  their  for 
titude  ;  no  calamity  break  their  spirit.  Even  when 
equally  successful,  the  contrast  between  the  two  sys 
tems  is  striking.  War  and  restriction  may  leave  the 
country  equally  exhausted ;  but  the  latter  not  only 
leaves  you  poor,  but,  even  when  successful,  dispirited, 
divided,  discontented,  with  diminished  patriotism,  and 
the  morals  of  a  considerable  portion  of  your  people 
corrupted.  Not  so  in  war.  In  that  state,  the  common 
danger  unites  all,  strengthens  the  bonds  of  society,  and 
feeds  the  flame  of  patriotism.  The  national  character 
mounts  to  energy.  In  exchange  for  the  expenses  and 
privations  of  war,  you  obtain  military  and  naval  skill, 
and  a  more  perfect  organization  of  such  parts  of  your 
administration  as  are  connected  with  the  science  of 
national  defence.  Sir,  are  these  advantages  to  be 
counted  as  trifles  in  the  present  state  of  the  world  ? 
Can  they  be  measured  by  moneyed  valuation  ?  I 
would  prefer  a  single  victory  over  the  enemy,  by  sea 
or  land,  to  all  the  good  we  shall  ever  derive  from  the 
continuation  of  the  Non-importation  Act.  I  know  not 
that  a  victory  would  produce  an  equal  pressure  on  the 
enemy ;  but  I  am  certain  of  what  is  of  greater  conse 
quence,  it  would  be  accompanied  by  more  salutary 
effects  to  ourselves.  The  memory  of  Saratoga,  Prince 
ton,  and  Eutaw  is  immortal.  It  is  there  you  will  find 
the  country's  boast  and  pride — the  inexhaustible  source 


54  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1813. 

of  great  and  heroic  sentiments.  But  what  will  history 
say  of  restriction  ?  What  examples  worthy  of  imita 
tion  will  it  furnish  to  posterity  ?  What  pride,  what 
pleasure,  will  our  children  find  in  the  events  of  such 
times  ?  Let  me  not  be  considered  romantic.  This 
nation  ought  to  be  taught  to  rely  on  its  courage,  its 
fortitude,  its  skill  and  virtue,  for  protection.  These 
are  the  only  safeguards  in  the  hour  of  danger.  Man 
was  endued  with  these  great  qualities  for  his  defence. 
There  is  nothing  about  him  that  indicates  that  he  is  to 
conquer  by  endurance.  He  is  not  incrusted  in  a  shell ; 
he  is  not  taught  to  rely  upon  his  insensibility,  his  pas 
sive  suffering,  for  defence.  No,  Sir  ;  it  is  on  the  invin 
cible  mind,  on  a  magnanimous  nature,  he  ought  to  rely. 
Here  is  the  superiority  of  our  kind ;  it  is  these  that 
render  man  the  lord  of  the  world.  It  is  the  destiny  of 
his  condition  that  nations  rise  above  nations,  as  they 
are  endued  in  a  greater  degree  with  these  brilliant 
qualities." 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  among  the  most  prominent  speak 
ers  in  defending  the  war-bill,  and  the  various  collateral 
questions  or  measures  which  grew  out  of  it.  A  few 
months'  experience  enabled  him  to  cope  successfully 
\vith  the  most  experienced  debaters  ;  and  on  the  retire 
ment  of  Mr.  Porter  from  Congress,  "  to  partake  per 
sonally,  not  only  in  the  pleasures,  if  anv  there  should 
be,  but  in  all  the  dangers  of  the  revelry/  — which  that 
gentleman  had  pledged  himself  to  do  if  war  was  declar 
ed. — the  post  of  honor,  particularly  so  in  this  crisis,  at 
the  iiead  uf  the  Committee  of  Foreign  Relations,  was 
filled  by  the  former.  In  this  capacity  he  reported  the 
bill  declaring  war  against  Great  Britain,  and  urged  its 


1811-15.]  DISINTERESTEDNESS.  55 

prompt  passage  with  all  the  zeal  and  ability  that  he 
possessed. 

At  the  second  session  of  the  twelfth  Congress,  the 
Speaker  was  much  embarrassed  in  the  appointment  of 
the  committees,  by  the  fact  that  there  were  so  many 
prominent  and  able  men  from  the  state  of  South  Caro 
lina.  As  Mr.  Calhoun  was  the  youngest  representative 
from  his  state,  he  consented,  with  his  usual  disinterest- 
deness,  to  be  placed  the  second  on  the  committee  of 
which  he  had  officiated  as  chairman,  at  the  previous 
session.  John  Smilie,  "an  old  and  highly-respectable 
member  from  Pennsylvania,  was  placed  at  the  head  of 
the  committee.  At  its  first  meeting  the  chairman,  with 
out  previously  intimating  his  intention,  moved  that  Mr. 
Calhoun  should  be  elected  chairman.  He  objected,  and 
insisted  that  Mr.  Smilie  should  act  as  chairman,  and 
declared  his  perfect  willingness  to  serve  under  him  ;  but 
he  was,  notwithstanding,  unanimously  elected,  and  the 
strongest  proof  that  could  be  given  of  the  highly  satis 
factory  manner  in  which  he  had  previously  discharged 
his  duty  was  thus  afforded.  In  this  conviction,  and  as 
illustrative  of  the  same  disinterested  character,  when 
the  Speaker's  chair  became  vacant  by  the  appointment 
of  Mr.  Clay  as  one  of  the  commissioners  to  negotiate 
for  peace,  Mr.  Calhoun  was  solicited  by  many  of  the 
most  influential  members  of  the  party  to  become  a  can 
didate  for  it ;  but  he  peremptorily  refused  to  oppose 
his  distinguished  colleague,  Mr.  Cheves,  who  was 
elected. 

"  At  an  early  period  of  the  same  session,  a  question 
out  of  the  ordinary  course,  and  which  excited  much 
interest  at  the  time,  became  the  subject  of  discussion, 


56  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811-15 

that  of  the  merchants'  bonds.  The  Non-importation 
Act  (one  of  the  restrictive  measures)  was  in  force  when 
the  war  was  declared.  Under  its  operation,  a  large 
amount  of  capital  had  been  accumulated  abroad,  and 
especially  in  England,  the  proceeds  of  exports  that  could 
not  be  returned  in  consequence  of  the  prohibition  of 
imports.  The  owners,  when  they  saw  war  was  inevi 
table,  became  alarmed,  and  gave  orders  for  the  return  of 
their  property.  It  came  back,  for  the  most  part,  in 
merchandise,  which  was  subject  to  forfeiture  under  the 
act.  The  owners  petitioned  for  the  remission  of  the 
forfeitures,  and  permission  to  enter  the  goods  on  paying 
the  war  duties.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  on  the 
other  hand,  proposed  to  remit  the  forfeiture  on  condi 
tion  that  the  amount  of  the  value  of  the  goods  should 
be  loaned  to  the  government  by  the  owners.  Mr. 
Cheves,  who  was  at  the  head  of  the  Committee  of 
Ways  and  Means,  reported  in  favor  of  the  petition,  and 
supported  his  report  by  an  able  speech.  The  question 
had  assumed  much  of  a  party  character,  but  it  did  not 
deter  Mr.  Calhoun  from  an  independent  exercise  of  his 
judgment.  He  believed  that  the  act  never  contempla 
ted  a  case  of  the  kind,  and  that  to  enforce,  under  such 
circumstances,  a  forfeiture  amounting  to  millions,  which 
would  embrace  a  large  class  of  citizens,  would  be  against 
the  spirit  of  the  criminal  code  of  a  free  and  enlightened 
people.  But  waiving  these  more  general  views,  he 
thought  the  only  alternative  was  to  remit  the  forfeiture, 
as  prayed  for  by  the  owners,  or  to  enforce  it  according 
to  the  provisions  of  the  act:  that,  if  the  importation 
was  such  a  violation  as  justly  and  properly  incurred  the 
forfeiture,  then  the  act  ought  to  be  enforced ;  but  if  not, 


1811-15.]       OPPOSES    RENEWAL    OF    EMBARGO.  57 

the  forfeiture  ought  to  be  remitted ;  and  that  the  gov 
ernment  had  no  right,  and  if  it  had,  it  was  unbecoming 
its  dignity  to  convert  a  penal  act  into  the  means  of 
making  a  forced  loan.  Thus  thinking,  he  seconded  the 
effort  of  his  distinguished  colleague,  and  enforced  his 
views  in  a  very  able  speech.  The  result  was,  that  the 
forfeiture  was  remitted,  and  the  goods  admitted  on  pay 
ing  duties  in  conformity  to  the  course  recommended  by 
the  committee. 

"  There  was  another  case  in  which,  at  this  period,  he 
evinced  his  firmness  and  independence.  The  adminis 
tration  still  adhered  to  the  restrictive  policy,  and  even 
after  the  war  was  declared  the  President  recommended 
the  renewal  of  the  Embargo.  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  has  been 
shown,  opposed,  on  principle,  the  wrhole  system  as  a 
substitute  for  war,  and  he  was  still  more  opposed  to  it 
as  an  auxiliary  to  it.  He  held  it,  in  that  light,  not  only 
as  inefficient  and  delusive,  but  as  calculated  to  impair 
the  means  of  the  country,  and  to  divert  a  greater  share 
of  its  capital  and  industry  to  manufactures  than  could 
be,  on  the  return  of  peace,  sustained  by  the  government 
on  any  sound  principles  of  justice  or  policy.  He 
thought  war  itself,  without  restrictions,  would  give  so 
great  a  stimulus,  that  no  small  embarrassment  and  loss 
would  result  on  its  termination,  in  despite  of  all  that 
could  be  done  for  them,  while,  at  the  same  time,  he  ex 
pressed  his  willingness,  when  peace  came,  to  protect 
the  establishments  that  might  grow  up  during  its  con 
tinuance,  as  far  as  it  could  be  fairly  done. 

"  The  Embargo  failed  on  the  first  recommendation ; 
but,  at  the  next  session,  being  recommended  again,  it 
succeeded.  Mr.  Calhoun,  at  the  earnest  entreaties  of 

3* 


58  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811-15. 

friends,  and  to  prevent  division  in  the  party  when  their 
union  was  so  necessary  to  the  success  of  the  war,  gave 
it  a  reluctant  vote. 

"  But  the  time  was  approaching  when  an  opportunity 
would  be  afforded  him  to  carry  out  successfully  his 
views  in  reference  to  the  restrictive  system,  and  that 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  party.  The  disasters  of 
Bonaparte  in  the  Russian  campaign,  his  consequent  fall 
and  dethronement  in  the  early  part  of  1814,  and  the 
triumph  of  Great  Britain,  after  one  of  the  longest,  and, 
altogether,  the  most  remarkable  contests  on  record, 
offered  that  opportunity,  which  he  promptly  seized. 
This  great  event,  which  terminated  the  war  in  Europe, 
left  Great  Britain,  flushed  with  victory,  in  full  possession 
of  all  the  vast  resources,  in  men,  money,  and  materials, 
by  which  she  had  brought  that  mighty  conflict  to  a  suc 
cessful  termination,  to  be  turned  against  us.  It  was  a 
fearful  state  of  things  ;  but,  as  fearful  as  it  was  of  itself, 
it  was  made  doubly  so  by  the  internal  condition  of  the 
country,  and  the  course  of  the  opposition.  Blinded  by 
party  zeal,  they  beheld  with  joy  or  indifference  what 
was  calculated  to  appal  the  patriotic.  Forgetting  the 
country,  and  intent  only  on  a  party  triumph,  they  seized 
the  opportunity  to  embarrass  the  government.  Their 
great  effort  was  made  against  the  Loan  Bill — a  measure 
necessary  to  carry  on  the  war.  Instead  of  supporting 
it,  they  denounced  the  war  itself  as  unjust  and  inexpe 
dient  ;  and  they  proclaimed  its  further  prosecution,  in 
so  unequal  a  contest,  as  hopeless,  now  that  the  whole 
power  of  the  British  Empire  would  be  brought  to  bear 
against  us.  Mr.  Calhoun  replied  in  a  manner  highly 
characteristic  of  the  man,  undaunted,  able,  and  eloquent 


1811-15.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    LOAN    BILL.  59 

None  can  read  this  speech,  even  at  this  distance  of  time, 
without  kindling  under  that  elevated  tone  of  feeling, 
which  wisdom,  emanating  from  a  spirit  lofty  and  self- 
possessed  under  the  most  trying  circumstances,  only 
can  inspire.  In  order  to  show  the  justice  and  expe 
diency  of  the  war,  he  took  an  historical  view  of  the 
maritime  usurpations  of  Great  Britain,  from  the  cele 
brated  order  in  council  of  1756,  to  the  time  of  the  dis 
cussion,  and  demonstrated  that  her  aggressions  were 
not  accidental,  or  dependent  on  peculiar  circumstances, 
but  were  the  result  of  a  fixed  system  of  policy,  intended 
to  establish  her  supremacy  on  the  ocean.  After  giving 
a  luminous  view  of  the  origin  and  character  of  the 
wrongs  we  had  suffered  from  her,  he  clearly  showed  the 
flimsiness  of  the  pretext  by  which  she  sought  to  justify 
her  conduct,  as  well  as  that  of  the  opposition  to  excuse 
her,  and  dwelt  upon  the  folly  of  hoping  to  obtain  re 
dress  by  sheathing  the  sword  or  throwing  ourselves  on 
her  justice.  The  following  extract,  taken  from  the  con 
clusion,  will  afford  an  example  of  his  lofty  and  animat 
ing  eloquence : 

" '  This  country  is  left  alone  to  support  the  rights  of 
neutrals.  Perilous  is  the  condition,  and  arduous  the 
task.  We  are  not  intimidated.  We  stand  opposed  to 
British  usurpation,  and,  by  our  spirit  and  efforts,  have 
done  all  in  our  power  to  save  the  last  vestiges  of  neutral 
rights.  Yes,  our  embargoes,  non-intercourse,  non-im 
portation,  and,  finally,  war,  are  all  manly  exertions  to 
preserve  the  rights  of  this  and  other  nations  from  the 
deadly  grasp  of  British  maritime  policy.  But  (say  our 
opponents)  these  efforts  are  lost,  and  our  condition  hope 
less.  If  so,  it  only  remains  for  us  to  assume  the  garb 


60  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1811-15. 

of  our  condition.  We  must  submit,  humbly  submit, 
crave  pardon,  and  hug  our  chains.  It  is  not  wise  to 
provoke  where  we  cannot  resist.  But  first  let  us  be 
well  assured  of  the  hopelessness  of  our  state  before  we 
sink  into  submission.  On  what  do  our  opponents  rest 
their  despondent  and  slavish  belief?  On  the  recent 
events  in  Europe  ?  I  admit  they  are  great,  and  well 
calculated  to  impose  on  the  imagination.  Our  enemy 
never  presented  a  more  imposing  exterior.  His  fortune 
is  at  the  flood.  But  I  am  admonished  by  universal  ex 
perience,  that  such  prosperity  is  the  most  precarious  of 
human  conditions.  From  the  flood  the  tide  dates  its 
ebb.  From  the  meridian  the  sun  commences  its  de 
cline.  Depend  upon  it,  there  is  more  of  sound  philoso 
phy  than  of  fiction  in  the  fickleness  which  poets  attribute 
to  fortune.  Prosperity  has  its  weakness,  adversity  its 
strength.  In  many  respects  our  enemy  has  lost  by  those 
very  changes  which  seem  so  very  much  in  his  favor. 
He  can  no  more  claim  to  be  struggling  for  existence; 
no  more  to  be  fighting  the  battles  of  the  world  in  defence 
of  the  liberties  of  mankind.  The  magic  cry  of  '  French 
influence'  is  lost.  In  this  very  hall  we  are  not  stran 
gers  to  that  sound.  Here,  even  here,  the  cry  of 'French 
influence/  that  baseless  fiction,  that  phantom  of  faction 
now  banished,  often  resounded.  I  rejoice  that  the  spell 
is  broken  by  which  it  was  attempted  to  bind  the  spirit 
of  this  youthful  nation.  The  minority  can  no  longer 
act  under  cover,  but  must  come  out  and  defend  their 
opposition  on  its  own  intrinsic  merits.  Our  example 
can  scarcely  fail  to  produce  its  effects  on  other  nations 
interested  in  the  maintenance  of  maritime  rights.  But 
if,  unfortunately,  we  should  be  left  alone  to  maintain 


1811-15.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    LOAN    BILL.  61 

the  contest,  and  if,  which  may  God  forbid,  necessity 
should  compel  us  to  yield  for  the  present,  yet  our  gener 
ous  efforts  will  not  have  been  lost.  A  mode  of  thinking 
and  a  tone  of  sentiment  have  gone  abroad  which  must 
stimulate  to  future  and  more  successful  struggles. 
What  could  not  be  effected  with  eight  millions  of  people 
will  be  done  with  twenty.  The  great  cause  will  never 
be  yielded — no,  never,  never !  Sir,  1  hear  the  future 
audibly  announced  in  the  past — in  the  splendid  vic 
tories  over  the  Guerriere,  Java,  and  Macedonian.  We, 
and  all  nations,  by  these  victories,  are  taught  a  lesson 
never  to  be  forgotten.  Opinion  is  power.  The  charm 
of  British  naval  invincibility  is  gone.' 

"  Such  was  the  animated  strain  by  which  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  roused  the  spirit  of  the  government  and  country 
under  a  complication  of  adverse  circumstances  calcu 
lated  to  overwhelm  the  feeble  and  appal  the  stoutest. 
Never  faltering,  never  doubting,  never  despairing  of 
the  Republic,  he  was  at  once  the  hope  of  the  party  and 
the  beacon  light  to  the  country. 

"  But  he  did  not  limit  his  efforts  to  repelling  the  at 
tacks  of  the  opposition,  and  animating  the  hopes  of  the 
government  and  country.  He  saw  that  the  very 
events  which  exposed  us  to  so  much  danger,  made  a 
mighty  change  in  the  political  and  commercial  rela 
tions  of  Continental  Europe,  which  had  been  so  long 
closed  against  foreign  commerce,  in  consequence  of 
the  long  war  that  grew  out  of  the  French  Revolution, 
and  of  those  hostile  orders  and  decrees  of  the .  two 
great  belligerents,  which  had  for  many  years  almost 
annihilated  all  lawful  commerce  between  the  Continent 
of  Europe  and  the  rest  of  the  world.  The  events  that 


62  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1811-15. 

dethroned  Bonaparte  put  an  end  to  that  state  of  things, 
and  left  all  the  powers  of  Europe  free  to  resume  their 
former  commercial  pursuits.  He  saw  in  all  this  that 
the  time  had  come  to  free  the  government  entirely 
from  the  shackles  of  the  restrictive  system,  to  which 
he. had  been  so  long  opposed  ;  and  he,  accordingly,  fol 
lowed  up  his  speech  by  a  bill  to  repeal  the  Embargo 
and  the  Non-importation  Act.  He  rested  their  repeal 
on  the  ground  that  they  were  a  portion  of  the  restric 
tive  policy,  and  showed  that  the  ground  on  which  it 
had  been  heretofore  sustained  was,  that  it  was  a  pacific 
policy,  growing  out  of  the  extraordinary  state  of  the 
world  at  the  time  it  wras  adopted,  and,  of  course,  de 
pendent  on  the  continuance  of  that  state.  *  It  was  a 
time,'  he  said,  '  when  every  power  on  the  Continent 
was  arrayed  against  Great  Britain,  under  the  over 
whelming  influence  of  Bonaparte,  and  no  country  but 
ours  interested  in  maintaining  neutral  rights.  The  fact 
of  all  the  Continental  ports  being  closed  against  her, 
gave  to  our  restrictive  measures  an  efficacy  which  they 
no  longer  had,  now  that  they  were  open  to  her.'  He 
admitted  that  the  system  had  been  continued  too  long, 
and  been  too  far  extended,  and  that  he  was  opposed  to 
it  as  a  substitute  for  war,  but  contended  that  there 
would  be  no  inconsistency  on  the  part  of  the  govern 
ment  in  abandoning  a  policy  founded  on  a  state  of 
things  which  no  longer  existed.  '  But  now,'  said  he, 
'the  Continental  powers  are  neutrals,  as  between 
us  and  Great  Britain.  We  are  contending  for  the 
freedom  of  trade,  and  ought  to  use  every  exertion  to 
attach  to  our  cause  Russia,  Sweden,  Holland,  Den 
mark,  and  all  other  nations  which  have  an  interest  in 


1811-15.]          SPEECH    ON    THE    LOAN    felLL.  63 

the  freedom  of  the  seas.  The  maritime  rights  as 
sumed  by  Great  Britain  infringe  on  the  rights  of  all 
neutral  powers,  and  if  we  should  now  open  our  ports 
and  trade  to  the  nations  of  the  Continent,  it  would  in 
volve  Great  Britain  in  a  very  awkward  and  perplexing 
dilemma.  She  must  either  permit  us  to  enjoy  a  very 
lucrative  commerce  with  them,  or  by  attempting  to  ex 
clude  them  from  our  ports  by  her  system  of  paper 
blockades  she  would  force  them  to  espouse  our  cause. 
The  option  which  would  thus  be  tendered  her  would 
so  embarrass  her  as  to  produce  a  stronger  desire  for 
peace  than  ten  years'  continuance  of  the  present  sys 
tem,  imperative  as  it  is  now  rendered  by  a  change  of 
circumstances."* 

No  one  can  now  look  back  to  that  stirring  period  at 
which  these  words  were  uttered,  uninfluenced  by  the 
passions  and  prejudices  of  the  day,  which  it  is  but  nat 
ural  to  suppose  may  have  in  some  degree  warped  the 
best  and  wisest  judgments,  without  being  struck  with 
the  almost  prophetic  character  of  the  remarks  of  Mr. 
Calhoun.  His  vision  seemed  to  o'ertop  passing  events, 
and  to  take  in  at  a  single  glance  the  future  with  all  the 
valuable  lessons,  in  the  fulfilment  as  in  the  disappoint 
ment  of  hopes  and  expectations,  which  it  had  in  store 

*  Memoir  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  1843. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

Reelection  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Results  of  the  War — The  Commercial 
Treaty — Course  of  Mr.  Calhoun — His  Speech — The  United  States 
Bank — Mr.  Dallas'  Bill — Opposition  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  this  Measure 
— Its  Defeat — Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Currency — Report 
of  a  Bank  Bill — Speech — Passage  of  the  Bill. 

So  well  pleased  were  the  constituents  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
with  the  manner  in  which  he  had  discharged  his  duties 
as  a  member  of  Congress,  during  that  important  junc 
ture  in  the  affairs  of  the  national  government,  the  main 
incidents  of  which  have  been  detailed,  that  he  was 
returned  without  opposition,  in  the  fall  of  1812,  and 
again  in  1814,  to  the  thirteenth  and  fourteenth  Con 
gresses. 

Until  the  close  of  the  war  he  remained  the  firm  and 
steadfast  advocate  of  decisive  measures,  yet  when  a 
favorable  peace  had  been  concluded  he  hailed  it  as  the 
harbinger  of  good  to  the  country,  and  especially  as  it 
was  the  signal  of  her  release  from  the  thraldom  of 
foreign  influence.  The  results  of  the  contest  were 
manifold,  and  in  several  important  respects  they  af 
fected  the  political  action  and  conduct  of  Mr.  Calhoun. 
If  strict  chronological  order  were  essential  to  be  ob 
served,  the  subject  of  the  charter  of  the  United  States 
Bank  would  be  first  in  time,  but  as  that  is  unneces 
sary,  the  Commercial  Treaty  with  Great  Britain  and 


1815-16.]  THE    COMMERCIAL    TREATY.  65 

the  debate  which  took  place  thereon  in  Congress,  seem 
naturally  to  follow  the  conclusion  of  the  war. 

Immediately  after  the  ratification  of  the  treaty  was 
made  public,  and  the  appearance  of  the  proclamation 
of  the  President,  a  bill  was  introduced  into  the  House 
of  Representatives  by  Mr.  Forsyth,  from  the  Com 
mittee  on  Foreign  Relations,  providing  for  carrying  the 
treaty  into  effect,  or,  in  other  words,  declaring  that  the 
laws  in  regard  to  the  imposition  and  collection  of 
duties,  not  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
or  convention,  were  repealed.  A  long  and  interesting 
debate  arose  upon  the  merits  of  this  bill,  in  the  course 
of  which  Mr.  Calhoun  delivered  an  able  and  argu 
mentative  speech,  which  is  thus  reported  in  the  Na 
tional  Intelligencer : — 

Mr.  Calhoun  observed,  that  the  votes  on  this  bill  had  been  ordered  to 
be  recorded,  and  that  the  house  would  see,  in  his  peculiar  situation,  a 
sufficient  apology  for  his  offering  his  reasons  for  the  rejection  of  the 
bill.  He  had  no  disposition  to  speak  on  this  bill,  as  he  felt  contented  to 
let  it  take  that  course,  which,  in  the  opinion  of  the  majority,  it  ought,  till 
the  members  were  called  on  by  the  order  of  the  house  to  record  their 
votes. 

The  question  presented  for  consideration  is  perfectly  simple,  and 
easily  understood;  is  this  bill  necessary  to  give  validity  to  the  late 
treaty  with  Great  Britain?  It  appeared  to  him,  that  this  question  is 
susceptible  of  a  decision,  without  considering  whether  a  treaty  can  in 
any  case  set  aside  a  law;  or,  to  be  more  particular,  whether  the  treaty 
which  this  bill  purposes  to  carry  into  effect,  does  repeal  the  discriminat 
ing  duties.  The  house  will  remember  that  a  law  was  passed  at  the  close 
of  the  last  session,  conditionally  repealing  those  duties.  That  act  pro 
posed  to  repeal  them  in  relation  to  any  nation,  which  would  on  its  part 
agree  to  repeal  similar  duties  as  to  this  country.  On  the  contingency 
happening,  the  law  became  positive.  It  has  happened,  and  has  been 
announced  to  the  country,  that  England  has  agreed  to  repeal.  The 
President,  in  proclaiming  the  treaty,  has  notified  the  fact  to  the 


66  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815—16, 

and  country.  "Why  then  propose  to  do  that  by  this  bill,  which  has  al 
ready  been  done  by  a  previous  act  ?  He  knew  it  had  been  said  in  con 
versation,  that  the  provisions  of  the  act  were  not  as  broad  as  the  treaty. 
It  did  not  strike  him  so.  They  appeared  to  him  to  be  commensurate. 
He  would  also  reason  from  the  appearance  of  this  house,  that  they  were 
not  very  deeply  impressed  with  the  necessity  of  this  bill.  He  never,  on 
any  important  occasion,  saw  it  so  indifferent.  Whence  could  this  arise  ? 
From  the  want  of  importance  ?  If,  indeed,  the  existence  of  the  treaty 
depended  on  the  passage  of  this  bill,  nothing1  scarcely  could  be  more 
interesting.  It  would  be  calculated  to  excite  strong  feelings.  We  all 
know  how  the  country  was  agitated  when  Jay's  treaty  was  before  this 
house.  The  question  was  on  an  appropriation  to  carry  it  into  effect ; 
a  power  acknowledged  by  all  to  belong  to  the  house ;  and  on  the  exer 
cise  of  which,  the  existence  of  the  (reaty  was  felt  to  depend.  The  feel 
ings  manifested  corresponded  with  this  conviction.  Not  so  on  this  oc 
casion.  Farther,  the  treaty  has  already  assumed  the  form  of  law.  It 
is  so  proclaimed  to  the  community ;  the  words  of  the  proclamation  are 
not  material;  it  speaks  for  itself;  and  if  it  means  anything,  it  announces 
the  treaty  as  a  rule  of  public  conduct,  as  a  law  exacting  the  obedience 
of  the  people.  Were  he  of  the  opposite  side,  if  he  indeed  believed  this 
treaty  to  be  a  dead  letter  till  it  received  the  sanction  of  Congress,  he 
would  lay  the  bill  on  the  table,  and  move  an  inquiry  into  the  fact,  why 
the  treaty  has  been  proclaimed  as  a  law  before  it  had  received  the 
proper  sanction.  It  is  true,  the  Executive  has  transmitted  a  copy  of 
the  treaty  to  the  house ;  but  has  he  sent  the  negotiation  ?  Has  he  given 
any  light  to  judge  why  it  should  receive  the  sanction  of  this  body  ? 
Do  gentlemen  mean  to  say  that  information  is  not  needed ;  that  though 
we  have  the  right  to  pass  laws  to  give  validity  to  treaties,  yet  we  are 
bound  by  a  moral  obligation  to  pass  such  laws  ?  To  talk  of  the  right  of 
this  house  to  sanction  treaties,  and  at  the  same  time  to  assert  that  it  is 
under  a  moral  obligation  not  to  withhold  that  sanction,  is  a  solecism. 
No  sound  mind  that  understands  the  terms  can  possibly  assent  to  it. 
He  would  caution  the  house,  while  it  was  extending  its  powers  to  cases 
which  he  believed  did  not  belong  to  it,  to  take  care  lest  it  should  lose 
its  substantial  and  undoubted  power.  He  would  put  it  on  its  guard 
against  the  dangerous  doctrine,  that  it  can  in  any  case  become  a  mere 
registering  body.  Another  fact,  in  regard  to  this  treaty.  It  does  not 
stipulate  that  a  law  should  pass  to  repeal  the  duties  proposed  to  be  re 
pealed  by  this  bill,  which  would  be  its  proper  form,  if  in  the  opinion  of 


1815-16.]      SPEECH  ON  THE  TREATY-MAKING  POWER.       67 

the  negotiators  a  law  was  necessary ;  but  it  stipulates  in  positive  terms 
for  their  repeal  without  consulting  or  regarding  us.  Mr.  0.  here  con 
cluded  this  part  of  the  discussion,  by  stating  that  it  appeared  to  him, 
from  the  whole  complexion  of  the  case,  that  the  bill  before  the  house 
was  mere  form  and  not  supposed  to  be  necessary  to  the  validity  of  the 
treaty.  It  would  be  proper,  however,  he  observed,  to  reply  to  the 
arguments  which  have  been  urged  on  the  general  nature  of  the  treaty- 
making  power,  and  as  it  was  a  subject  of  great  importance,  he  solicited 
the  attentive  hearing  of  the  house.  It  is  not  denied,  he  believed,  that 
the  President  with  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  the  Senate  have  a 
right  to  make  commercial  treaties ;  it  is  not  asserted  that  this  treaty  is 
couched  in  such  general  terms  as  to  require  a  law  to  carry  the  details 
into  execution.  Why  then  is  this  bill  necessary  ?  Because,  say  gentle 
men,  that  the  treaty  of  itself,  without  the  aid  of  this  bill,  cannot  exempt 
British  tonnage  and  goods  imported  in  their  bottoms,  from  the  operation 
of  the  law,  laying  additional  duties  on  foreign  tonnage  and  goods  im 
ported  in  foreign  vessels ;  or,  giving  the  question  a  more  general  form, 
because  a  "treaty  cannot  annul  a  law.  The  gentleman  from  Virginia, 
(Mr.  Barbour,)  who  argued  this  point  very  distinctly,  though  not  satis 
factorily,  took  as  his  general  position,  that  to  repeal  a  law  is  a  legislative 
act,  and  can  only  be  done  by  law ;  that  in  the  distribution  of  the  legis 
lative  and  treaty-making  power,  the  right  to  repeal  a  law  fell  exclusively 
under  the  former.  How  does  this  comport  with  the  admission  imme 
diately  made  by  him,  that  the  treaty  of  peace  repealed  the  act  declaring 
war?  If  he  admits  the  fact  in  a  single  case,  what  becomes  of  his  ex 
clusive  legislative  right  ?  He  indeed  felt  that  hisjrule  failed  him,  and 
in  explanation  assumed  a  position  entirely  new ;  for  he  admitted,  that 
when  the  treaty  did  that  which  was  not  authorized  to  be  done  by  law, 
it  did  not  require  the  sanction  of  Congress,  and  might  in  its  operation 
repeal  a  law  inconsistent  with  it.  He  said,  Congress  is  not  authorized 
to  make  peace ;  and  for  this  reason,  a  treaty  of  peace  repeals  the  act 
declaring  war.  In  tin's  position,  he  understood  his  colleague  substan 
tially  to  concur.  He  hoped  to  make  it  appear  that,  in  taking  this 
ground,  they  have  both  yielded  the  point  in  discussion.  He  would 
establish,  he  trusted,  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  house,  that  the  treaty- 
making  power,  when  it  was  legitimately  exercised,  always  did  that 
which  could  not  be  done  by  law ;  and  that  the  reasons  advanced  to 
pr  ve  that  the  treaty  of  peace  repealed  the  act  making  war,  so  far  from 
1  ag  peculiar  to  that  case,  apply  to  all  treaties.  They  do  not  form  an 


68  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1815-16. 

exception,  but  in  fact  constitute  the  rule.  Why  then,  he  asked,  cannot 
Congress  make  peace  ?  They  have  the  power  to  declare  war.  All  ac 
knowledge  this  power.  Peace  and  war  are  the  opposites.  They  are 
the  positive  and  negative  terms  of  the  same  proposition ;  and  what  rule 
of  construction  more  clear,  than  that  when  a  power  is  given  to  do  an 
act,  the  power  is  also  given  to  repeal  it  ?  By  what  right  do  you  repeal 
taxes,  reduce  your  army,  lay  up  your  navy,  or  repeal  any  law,  but  by 
the  force  of  this  plain  rule  of  construction  ?  Why  cannot  Congress,  then, 
repeal  the  act  declaring  war  ?  He  acknowledged  with  the  gentleman, 
they  cannot  consistently  with  reason.  The  solution  of  this  question  ex 
plained  the  whole  difficulty.  The  reason  is  plain :  one  power  may  make 
war ;  it  requires  two  to  make  peace.  It  is  a  state  of  mutual  amity 
succeeding  mutual  hostility ;  it  is  a  state  that  cannot  be  created  but  with 
the  consent  of  both  parties.  It  required  a  contract  or  a  treaty  between 
the  nations  at  war.  Is  this  peculiar  to  a  treaty  of  peace  ?  No,  it  is 
common  to  all  treaties.  It  arises  out  of  their  nature,  and  not  from  any 
accidental  circumstance  attaching  itself  to  a  particular  class.  It  is  no 
more  or  less  than  that  Congress  cannot  make  a  contract  with  a  foreign 
nation.  Let  us  apply  it  to  a  treaty  of  commerce,  to  this  very  case. 
Can  Congress  do  what  this  treaty  has  done  ?  It  has  repealed  the  dis 
criminating  duties  between  this  country  and  England.  Either  could 
by  law  repeal  its  own.  But  bv  law  they  could  go  no  farther  ;  and  for 
the  same  reason  that  peace  cannot  be  made  by  law.  Whenever,  then, 
an  ordinary  subject  of  legislation  can  only  be  regulated  by  contract,  it 
passes  from  the  sphere  of  the  ordinary  power  of  making  laws,  and  at 
taches  itself  to  that  of  making  treaties,  wherever  it  is  lodged.  All  ac 
knowledge  the  truth  of  this  conclusion,  where  the  subject  on  which  the 
treaty  operates  is  not  expressly  given  to  Congress.  But  in  other  cases, 
they  consider  the  two  powers  as  concurrent ;  and  conclude  from  the 
nature  of  such  powers  that  such  treaties  must  be  confirmed  by  law. 
Will  they  acknowledge  the  opposite,  that  laws  on  such  subjects  must  be 
confirmed  by  treaties  ?  And  if,  as  they  state,  a  law  can  repeal  a  treaty 
when  concurrent,  why  not  a  treaty  a  law  ?  Into  such  absurdities  do 
false  doctrines  lead.  The  truth  is,  the  legislative  and  treaty-making 
power  are  never  in  the  strict  sense  concurrent.  They  both  may  have 
the  same  subject,  as  in  this  case  commerce ;  but  they  discharge  functions 
as  different  in  relation  to  it  in  their  nature,  as  their  subject  is  alike. 
When  we  speak  of  concurrent  powers,  we  mean  when  both  can  do  the 
same  thing ;  1  ut  he  contended,  that  when  the  two  powers  under  discus- 


1815-16.]      SPEECH  ON  THE  TREATY-MAKING  POWER.       69 

sion  were  confined  to  their  proper  sphere,  not  only  the  law  could  not  do 
what  could  be  done  by  treaty,  but  the  reverse  was  true ;  that  is,  they 
never  are  nor  can  be  concurrent  powers.  It  is  only  when  we  reason  on 
this  subject  that  we  mistake ;  in  all  other  cases  the  common  sense  of 
the  house  and  country  decide  correctly.  It  is  proposed  to  establish 
some  regulation  of  commerce  ;  we  immediately  inquire,  does  it  depend 
on  our  will ;  can  we  make  the  desired  regulation  without  the  concur 
rence  of  any  foreign  power ;  if  so,  it  belongs  to  Congress,  ard  any  one 
would  feel  it  to  be  absurd  to  attempt  to  effect  it  by  treaty.  On  the 
contrary,  does  it  require  the  consent  of  a  foreign  power  ?  Is  it  proposed 
to  grant  a  favor  for  a  favor,  to  repeal  discriminating  duties  on  both 
sides  ?  It  is  equally  felt  to  belong  to  the  treaty  power  ;  and  he  would 
be  thought  insane  who  would  propose  to  abolish  the  discriminating 
duties  in  any  case,  by  an  act  of  the  American  Congress.  It  is  calculated, 
he  felt,  almost  to  insult  the  good  sense  of  the  house,  to  dwell  on  a  point 
apparently  so  clear.  What  then  would  he  infer  from  what  had  been 
advanced  ?  That  according  to  the  argument  of  gentlemen,  treaties, 
producing  a  state  of  things  inconsistent  with  the  provisions  of  an  exist 
ing  law,  annul  such  provisions.  But  as  he  did  not  agree  with  them  in 
the  view  which  they  took,  he  would  here  present  his  own  for  considera 
tion.  Why  then  has  a  treaty  the  force  which  he  attributes  to  it  ?  Be 
cause  it  is  an  act  in  its  own  nature  paramount  to  laws  made  by  the  com 
mon  legislative  powers  of  the  country.  It  is  in  fact  a  law,  and  some 
thing  more,  a  law  established  by  contract  between  independent  nations. 
To  analogize  it  to  private  life,  law  has  the  same  relations  to  treaty,  as 
the  resolution  taken  by  an  individual  to  his  contract.  An  individual 
may  make  the  most  deliberate  promise — he  may  swear  it  in  the  most 
solemn  form,  that  he  would  not  eell  his  house  or  any  other  property  he 
may  have ;  yet,  if  he  would  afterwards  sell,  the  sale  would  be  valid  in 
law ;  he  would  not  be  admitted  in  a  court  of  justice  to  plead  his  oath 
against  his  contract.  Take  a  case  of  government  in  its  most  simple  form, 
where  it  was  purely  despotic,  that  is,  all  power  lodged  in  the  hands  of 
a  single  individual.  Would  not  his  treaties  repeal  inconsistent  edicts  ? 
Let  us  now  ascend  from  the  instances  cited,  to  illustrate  the  nature  of 
the  two  powers,  to  the  principle  on  which  the  paramount  character  of  a 
treaty  rests.  A  treaty  always  affects  the  interests  of  two ;  a  law  only 
that  of  a  single  nation.  It  is  an  established  principle  of  politics  and 
morality,  that  the  interest  of  the  many  is  paramount  to  that  of  the 
few.  In  fact,  it  is  a  principle  so  radical,  that  without  it  no  system  of 


70  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

morality,  no  rational  scheme  of  government  could  exist.  It  is  for  this 
reason,  that  contracts  or  that  treaties,  which  are  only  the  contracts  of 
independent  nations,  or  to  express  both  in  two  words,  that  plighted 
faith,  has  in  all  ages  and  nations  been  considered  so  solemn.  But  it  is 
said,  in  opposition  to  this  position,  that  a  subsequent  law  can  repeal  a 
treaty ;  and  to  this  proposition,  he  understood  that  the  member  from 
K  C.  (Mr.  Gaston)  assented.  Strictly  speaking,  he  denied  the  fact.  He 
knew  that  a  law  might  assume  the  appearance  of  repealing  a  treaty ; 
but  he  insisted  it  was  only  in  appearance,  and  that,  in  point  of  fact,  it 
was  not  a  repeal.  Whenever  a  law  was  proposed,  declaring  a  treaty 
void,  he  considered  that  the  house  acted  not  as  a  legislative  body,  but 
judicially.  He  would  illustrate  his  ideas.  If  the  house  is  a  moral 
body,  that  is,  if  it  is  governed  by  reason  and  virtue,  which  it  must  al 
ways  be  presumed  to  be,  the  only  question  that  ever  could  occupy  its 
attention,  whenever  a  treaty  is  to  be  declared  void,  is  whether,  under  all 
of  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  the  treaty  is  not  already  destroyed,  by 
being  violated  by  the  nation  with  whom  it  is  made,  or  by  the  existence 
of  some  other  circumstance,  if  other  there  can  be.  The  house  determines 
this  question,  Is  the  country  any  longer  bound  by  the  treaty  ?  Has  it 
not  ceased  to  exist  ?  The  nation  passes  in  judgment  on  its  own  con 
tract  ;  and  this,  from  the  necessity  of  the  case,  as  it  admits  no  superior 
power  to  which  it  can  refer  for  decision.  If  any  other  consideration 
moves  the  house  to  repeal  a  treaty,  it  can  be  considered  only  in  the 
light  of  a  violation  of  a  contract  acknowledged  to  be  binding  on  the 
country.  A  nation  may,  it  is  true,  violate  its  contract;  they  may  even 
do  this  under  the  form  of  law ;  but  he  was  not  considering  what  might 
be  done,  but  what  might  be  rightfully  done.  It  is  not  a  question  of 
power,  but  of  right.  Why  are  not  these  positions,  in  themselves  so 
clear,  universally  assented  to  ?  Gentlemen  are  alarmed  at  imaginary 
consequences.  They  argue  not  as  if  seeking  for  the  meaning  of  the 
constitution  ;  but  as  if  deliberating  on  the  subject  of  making  one  ;  not  as 
members  of  the  legislature,  and  acting  under  a  constitution  already 
established,  but  as  that  of  a  convention  about  to  frame  one.  For  his 
part,  he  had  always  regarded  the  constitution  as  a  work  of  great  wis 
dom,  and,  being  the  instrument  under  which  we  existed  as  a  body,  it 
was  our  duty  to  bow  to  its  enactments,  whatever  they  may  be,  with 
submission.  We  ought  scarcely  to  indulge  a  wish  that  its  provisions 
should  be  different  from  what  they  in  fact  are.  The  consequences,  how 
ever,  which  appear  to  work  with  so  much  terror  on  the  minds  of  the 


1815-16.]      SPEECH  ON  THE  TREATY-MAKING  POWER.       71 

gentlemen,  he  considered  to  be  without  any  just  foundation.  The  treaty- 
making  power  has  many  and  powerful  limits ;  and  it  will  be  found,  when 
he  came  to  discuss  what  those  limits  are,  that  it  cannot  destroy  the  con 
stitution,  our  personal  liberty,  involve  us,  without  the  assent  of  this 
house,  in  war,  or  grant  away  our  money.  The  limits  he  proposed  to 
this  power,  are  not  the  same,  it  is  true ;  but  they  appear  to  him  much 
more  rational  and  powerful  than  those  which  were  supposed  to  present 
effectual  guards  to  its  abuse.  Let  us  now  consider  what  they  are. 
The  grant  of  the  power  to  maketreaties  is  couched  in  the  most  general 
terms.  The  words  of  the  constitution  are,  that  the  President  shall  have 
power,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  to  make 
treaties,  provided  two  thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concur.  In  a  sub 
sequent  part  of  the  constitution,  treaties  are  declared  to  be  the  supreme 
law  of  the  land.  Whatever  limits  are  imposed  on  those  general  terms 
ought  to  be  the  result  of  the  sound  construction  of  the  instrument.  There 
appeared  to  him  but  two  restrictions  on  its  exercise ;  the  one  derived 
from  the  nature  of  our  government,  and  the  other  from  that  of  the  power 
itself.  Most  certainly  all  grants  of  power  under  the  constitution  must 
be  controlled  by  that  instrument ;  for,  having  their  existence  from  it, 
they  must  of  necessity  assume  that  form  which  the  constitution  has  im 
posed.  This  is  acknowledged  to  be  true  of  the  legislative  power,  and  it 
is  doubtless  equally  so  of  the  power  to  make  treaties.  The  limits  of 
the  former  are  exactly  marked ;  it  was  necessary  to  prevent  collision 
with  similar  co-existing  state  powers.  This  country  is  divided  into  many 
distinct  sovereignties.  Exact  enumeration  here  is  necessary  to  prevent 
the  most  dangerous  consequences.  The  enumeration  of  legislative 
powers  in  the  constitution  has  relation  then  not  to  the  treaty  power,  but 
to  the  powers  of  the  state. 

In  our  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  world  the  case  is  reversed.  Here 
the  States  disappear.  Divided  within,  we  present  the  exterior  of  un 
divided  sovereignty.  The  wisdom  of  the  constitution  appears  con 
spicuous.  When  enumeration  was  needed,  there  we  find  the  powers 
enumerated  and  exactly  defined ;  when  not,  we  do  not  find  what  would 
be  vain  and  pernicious.  Whatever  then  concerns  our  foreign  relations  ; 
whatever  requires  the  consent  of  another  nation,  belongs  to  the  treaty 
power ;  can  only  be  regulated  by  it ;  and  it  is  competent  to  regulate 
all  such  subjects ;  provided,  and  here  are  its  true  limits,  such  regula 
tions  are  not  inconsistent  with  the  constitution.  If  so  they  are  void. 
Kb  treaty  can  alter  the  fabric  of  our  government,  nor  can  it  do  that 


72  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815—16. 

which  the  constitution  has  expressly  forbade  to  be  done ;  nor  can  it  do 
that  differently  which  is  directed  to  be  done  in  a  given  mode,  and  all 
other  modes  prohibited.  For  instance,  the  constitution  says,  no  money 
"  shall  be  drawn  out  of  the  treasury  but  by  an  appropriation  made  by 
law."  Of  course  no  subsidy  can  be  granted  without  an  act  of  law ;  and 
a  treaty  of  alliance  could  not  involve  the  country  in  war  without  the 
consent  of  this  house.  With  this  limitation  it  is  easy  to  explain  the 
case  put  by  my  colleague,  who  said,  that  according  to  one  limitation  a 
treaty  might  have  prohibited  the  introduction  of  a  certain  description 
of  persons  before  the  year  1808,  notwithstanding  the  clause  in  the  con 
stitution  to  the  contrary.  Mr.  C.  said,  that  he  would  speak  plainly  on 
this  point ;  it  was  the  intention  of  the  constitution  that  the  slave  trade 
should  be  tolerated  till  the  time  mentioned.  It  covered  him  with  conr 
fusion  to  name  it  here  ;  he  felt  ashamed  of  such  a  tolerance,  and  took 
a  large  part  of  the  disgrace,  as  he  represented  a  part  of  the  Union,  by 
whose  influence  it  might  be  supposed  to  have  been  introduced. 
Though  Congress  alone  is  prohibited  by  the  words  of  the  clause  from 
inhibiting  that  odious  traffic,  yet  his  colleague  would  admit  that  it  was 
intended  to  be  a  general  prohibition  on  the  government  of  the  Union. 
He  perceived  his  colleague  indicated  his  dissent.  It  will  be  necessary 
to  be  more  explicit.  Here  Mr.  C.  read  that  part  of  the  constitution, 
and  showed  that  the  word  "  Congress"  might  be  left  out,  in  conformity 
to  other  parts  of  the  constitution,  without  injury  to  the  sense  of  the 
clause ;  and  he  insisted  the  plain  meaning  of  the  parties  to  the  con 
stitution,  was,  that  the  trade  should  continue  till  1808,  and  that  a  pro 
hibition  by  treaty  would  be  equally  against  the  spirit  of  the  instrument. 
Besides  these  constitutional  limits,  the  treaty  power,  like  all  powers, 
has  others  derived  from  its  object  and  nature.  It  has  for  its  object, 
contracts  with  foreign  nations ;  as  the  powers  of  Congress  have  for 
their  object,  whatever  can  be  done  in  relation  to  the  powers  delegated 
to  it  without  the  consent  of  foreign  nations.  Each  in  its  proper  sphere 
operates  with  general  influence ;  but  when  they  became  erratic,  then 
they  were  portentous  and  dangerous.  A  treaty  never  can  legitimately 
do  that  which  can  be  done  by  law ;  and  the  converse  is  also  true. 
Suppose  the  discriminating  duties  repealed  on  both  sides  by  law,  yet 
what  is  effected  by  this  treaty  would  not  even  then  be  done ;  the 
plighted  faith  would  be  wanting.  Either  side  might  repeal  its  law 
without  breach  of  contract.  It  appeared  to  him  that  gentlemen  are 
too  much  influenced  on  this  subject  by  the  example  of  Great  Britain. 


1815-16.]      SPEECH  ON  THE  TREATY-MAKING  POWER.       73 

Instead  of  looking  to  the  nature  of  our  government,  they  have  been 
swayed  in  their  opinion  by  the  practice  of  that  government  to  which 
we  are  but  too  much  in  the  habit  of  looking  for  precedents.  Much 
anxiety  has  recently  been  evinced  to  be  independent  of  English  broad 
cloths  and  muslins ;  he  hoped  it  indicated  the  approach  of  a  period 
when  we  should  also  throw  off  the  thraldom  of  thought.  The  truth  is, 
but  little  analogy  exists  between  this  and  any  other  government.  It  is 
the  pride  of  ours  to  be  founded  in  reason  and  equity ;  all  others  have 
originated  more  or  less  in  fraud,  violence,  or  accident.  The  right  to 
make  treaties  in  England,  can  only  be  determined  by  the  practice  of 
that  government;  as  she  has  no  written  constitution.  Her  practice 
may  be  wise  in  regard  to  her  government,  when  it  would  be  very  im 
prudent  here.  Admitting  the  fact  to  be,  then,  that  the  King  refers  all 
commercial  treaties  affecting  the  municipal  regulations  of  the  country 
to  parliament,  for  its  sanction,  the  ground  would  be  very  feeble  to 
prove  that  to  be  the  intention  of  our  constitution.  Strong  difference 
exists  between  the  forms  of  the  two  governments.  The  king  is  he 
reditary  ;  he  alone,  without  the  participation  of  either  house  of  parlia 
ment,  negotiates  and  makes  treaties  :  they  have  no  constitution  emanat 
ing  from  the  people,  alike  superior  to  the  legislature  and  the  king. 
Not  so  here.  The  president  is  elected  for  a  short  period,  he  is  amena 
ble  to  the  public  opinion,  he  is  liable  to  be  impeached  for  corruption, 
he  cannot  make  treaties  without  the  concurrence  of  two  thirds  of  the 
Senate,  a  fact  very  material  to  be  remembered,  which  body  is  in  like 
manner  responsible  to  the  people  at  periods  not  very  remote ;  above 
all,  as  the  laws  and  constitution  are  here  perfectly  distinct,  and  the  lat 
ter  is  alike  superior  to  laws  and  treaties,  the  treaty  power  cannot 
Change  the  form  of  government,  or  encroach  on  the  liberties  of  the 
country,  without  encroaching  on  that  instrument,  which,  so  long  as  the 
people  are  free,  will  be  watched  with  vigilance. 

In  regard  to  his  course  upon  the  treaty  question,  Mr. 
Calhoun  found  himself  opposed  by  nearly  all  of  the  Re 
publican  members  of  the  House, — by  those,  too,  whose 
opinions  had  the  greatest  weight  with  him.  Mr.  Pink- 
ney,  of  Maryland,  the  accomplished  orator  and  advo 
cate,  took  the  same  ground  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  but 
arrayed  against  them  were  the  Clays,  the  Forsyths,  the 

4 


74  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

Lowndes,  and  the  Grundys,  the  great  leaders  of  the 
Republican  party.  With  such  odds  it  appeared  almost 
useless  to  contend ;  but,  in  the  direction  toward  which 
the  convictions  of  his  reason  and  judgment  pointed, 
thither  Mr.  Calhoun  turned  his  steps,  and  there  his  feet 
were  planted.  The  opinions  and  the  votes  of  others 
were  not  without  their  influence  upon  him.  He  did 
not  act  irrespective  or  regardless  of  them,  but  where 
they  did  not  coincide  with  his  own,  they  only  led  him 
to  consider  well  the  position  which  he  had  taken. 

The  true  question  presented  by  the  action  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  upon  the  commercial  con 
vention,  was  not,  as  has  sometimes  been  erroneously 
stated,  similar  to  that  which  arose  upon  Jay's  treaty, 
Dr  the  Panama  mission.  It  was  not  contended  by  Mr. 
Calhoun  and  those  who  thought  with  him,  that,  as  the 
treaty-making  power  was  vested  by  the  constitution  in 
the  President  and  Senate,  the  House  of  Representatives 
had  no  right  to  withhold  the  appropriations,  or  to  refuse 
to  pass  the  laws,  necessary  to  carry  a  treaty  into  effect. 
The  great  principle  which  Madison,  Gallatin,  and  Liv 
ingston  defended  \vith  so  much  earnestness,  and  which, 
at  a  later  day,  was  maintained  with  equal  zeal  by  Ben- 
ton,  Van  Buren,  Forsyth,  Hayne,  and  Woodbury,  was 
not  denied,  nor  called  in  question,  except  it  might  be 
indirectly  and  collaterally,  during  the  debate  on  the 
commercial  convention  of  1815.  It  was  rather  the  ap 
plication  of  the  principle,  than  the  principle  itself,  which 
formed  the  subject  of  discussion  and  dispute.  The 
majority  of  the  Republican  members  of  the  House  insist 
ed  that,  inasmuch  as  the  convention  stipulated  for  the 
equalization  of  tonnage  and  duties,  so  as  to  place  British 


1815-16.]  MADISON'S  OPINIONS.  75 

vessels  on  the  same  footing  with  American  vessels,  and 
as  the  original  law  required  the  sanction  of  both 
branches  of  the  legislative  power  of  the  government, 
it  was  not  competent,  therefore,  for  one  of  them,  acting 
in  conjunction  with  the  Executive,  to  nullify  it  pro 
hac  vice,  by  means  of  a  treaty,  any  more  than  it  would 
be  to  repeal  it  absolutely. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  on  the  other  hand,  contended,  that  no 
legislative  provisions  were  needed,  because  the  conven 
tion  contemplated  only  the  suspension  of  the  alien  dis 
ability  of  British  subjects,  in  respect  to  the  commercial 
relations  between  the  two  countries,  in  return  and  as  a 
consideration  for  a  similar  suspension  by  Great  Britain 
in  favor  of  American  citizens ;  that  this  was  a  matter 
peculiarly  within  the  province  of  the  treaty-making 
power;  and  that  when  a  treaty  having  reference  to 
that  subject  was  duly  made  by  the  power  authorized  in 
the  constitution,  it  became  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
and,  by  virtue  of  its  own  inherent  force  and  authority, 
suspended  the  operation  of  the  law  imposing  the  disa 
bility,  so  far  as  the  other  party  to  the  treaty  was  con 
cerned. 

Although  the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not 
meet  with  the  concurrence  of  his  party  friends,  except 
in  a  few  instances,  there  is  every  reason  for  supposing 
that  the  President  himself  entertained  similar  opinions, 
— and  who  was  more  competent  than  James  Madison 
to  decide  a  question  of  this  character? — for,  simul 
taneously  with  the  publication  of  the  commercial  treaty 
as  ratified,  his  proclamation  was  issued,  declaring  the 
removal  of  the  restrictions  and  disabilities  in  compliance 
with  its  provisions.  Mr.  Madison  was  constitutionally 


76  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815—16. 

averse  to  the  exercise  of  anything  like  a  doubtful  power, 
and  it  was  only  in  extreme  cases  that  he  could  be  in 
duced  to  strengthen  the  executive  arm.  This  was  not 
such  a  case ;  and  may  it  not  be  inferred,  then,  that  the 
President  did  not  anticipate  further  action  on  the  part 
of  Congress — the  Senate  having  already  ratified  the 
treaty — nor  suppose  that  any  legislative  provisions  were 
requisite  or  necessary. 

The  question,  however,  was  decided  the  other  way. 
The  bill  reported  by  Mr.  Forsyth  was  sustained  in  the 
House  by  a  large  majority ;  but  the  Senate,  anticipating 
the  result,  and  not  at  first  disposed  to  acquiesce  in  the 
application  of  the  principle  with  reference  to  the  treaty- 
making  power,  contended  for  by  the  House,  passed  a 
bill,  declaring,  in  general  terms,  that  all  laws  conflict 
ing  with  the  provisions  of  the  commercial  convention 
with  Great  Britain  should  be  regarded  of  no  effect,  in 
respect  to  British  subjects  or  vessels.  The  latter  bill 
was  amended  in  the  House  in  conformity  with  the 
wishes  of  the  majority,  and  the  Senate  refused  to  con 
cur  in  the  amendments.  Committees  of  conference 
were  then  appointed,  and  the  difficulty  was  finally  set 
tled  by  the  adoption,  substantially,  of  the  provisions  of 
the  original  House  bill ;  and  the  law,  as  enacted,  refer 
red  particularly  to  such  acts  as  imposed  "  a  higher  duty 
of  tonnage  or  of  impost  on  vessels  and  articles  imported 
in  vessels  of  Great  Britain  than  on  vessels  and  articles 
imported  in  vessels  of  the  United  States."  The  prin 
ciple,  if  principle  it  may  be  called,  insisted  upon  by  Mr. 
Forsyth  and  those  who  agreed  with  him  in  sentiment, 
thus  became  established  as  a  precedent,  which  has  been 
generally  observed  in  the  legislation  of  the  country. 


1815-16.]  THE    UNITED    STATES    BANK.  77 

Prominent  among  the  unfortunate  results  of  the  war 
of  1812,  was  the  prostration  of  public  and  private 
credit.  For  a  long  course  of  years  anterior  to  th* 
commencement  of  hostilities,  the  policy  pursued  bj 
England  and  France  had  been  decidedly  injurious  tc 
American  commerce  ;  and  all  the  other  great  interests 
of  the  country,  from  their  connection  with  and  depend 
ence  upon  it,  were  necessarily  more  or  less  affected  by 
the  same  cause,  and  in  a  similar  manner.  When  war 
was  declared,  business  was  generally  depressed,  and  it 
did  not  revive  again  till  the  conclusion  of  the  treaty  of 
peace.  The  contest  was  emphatically  one  of  self-de 
fence  on  the  part  of  the  United  States, — the  very  ex 
istence  of  the  government  was  jeoparded, — and  when 
she  came  out  of  the  struggle,  she  had  saved  little  more 
than  her  nationality  and  her  honor. 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  opposition  of  the  fed 
eral  party  to  the  war,  and  to  the  measures  connected 
with  its  prosecution  brought  forward  by  the  friends  of 
the  administration,  tended  very  much  to  increase  the 
embarrassments  under  which  the  government,  and  the 
people  themselves,  so  long  labored.  But  the  main 
cause  of  all  these  difficulties  was  the  "peace  like  a 
war,"  which  followed  the  Orders  in  Council  and  the 
Berlin  and  Milan  decrees,  and  whose  disastrous  conse 
quences  were  witnessed  more  clearly  and  distinctly 
immediately  after  the  actual  declaration  of  war.  The 
banks  soon  suspended  specie  payments,  and  immense 
losses  were  sustained  by  the  government  and  by  private 
individuals, — those  of  the  former  amounting,  as  has 
been  estimated,  to  forty-six  millions  of  dollars.*  Loans 

*  Report  of  Mr.  McDuffie  on  the  United  States  Bank  (House  of 
Representatives),  April  13,  1830 


78  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

for  carrying  on  the  war  were  made  with  great  diffi 
culty,  and  often  at  most  ruinous  rates.  As  the  cur 
rency  depreciated,  the  exchanges  became  deranged, 
and  the  prices  of  property  rose  and  fell  without  any 
seeming  regard  for  the  laws  which  usually  govern 
them.  There  was  no  financial  barometer  to  indicate 
the  changes  that  would  take  place.  The  nominal  value 
of  to-day  might  be  increased  or  reduced  from  twenty- 
five  to  thirty  per  cent  to-morrow,  without  any  osten 
sible  cause.  A  want  of  steadiness  prevailed  every 
where  ;  the  stagnation  of  business  was  general ;  com 
merce  was  completely  disordered  ;  and  hopeless  and 
irremediable  bankruptcy  was  apprehended.  The  gov 
ernment  struggled  for  a  time  against  the  tide,  but  was 
finally  borne  along  to  the  very  verge  of  the  abyss  upon 
which  it  hovered  when  the  treaty  of  Ghent  was 
signed. 

What  would  have  been  the  ultimate  effect  of  the 
impending  evils,  had  the  war  continued,  it  is  impossi 
ble  to  say  with  certainty ;  but  the  country  would  either 
have  rallied  as  one  man  to  the  support  of  the  govern 
ment,  and  by  a  display  of  its  united,  and  when  united, 
invincible,  energies,  terminated  the  contest  still  more 
gloriously ;  or  disaffection  and  division  would  have 
spread  further  and  wider,  and  involved  everything  in 
general  ruin. 

When  peace  was  declared,  the  actual  resources  of 
the  country  were  found  to  be  far  more  abundant  and 
more  promising  than  had  been  anticipated,  and  the  sub 
stantial  elements  of  wealth  and  prosperity  were  not 
seriously  diminished.  But  in  order  to  render  these 
available,  it  was  evident  that  some  plan  must  be  de- 


1808-16.]        COMMERCIAL    EMBARRASSMENTS.  79 

vised  for  procuring  relief  from  the  present  embarrass 
ments.  They  formed  an  incubus  on  the  body  politic 
which  it  was  necessary  to  remove  before  activity  and 
vigor  could  return.  Many  of  the  most  eminent  finan 
ciers,  forming  their  opinions  upon  the  favorable  effect 
produced,  as  was  alleged,  by  the  incorporation  of  a 
national  bank  in  1791,  upon  the  disordered  commerce 
and  finances  of  the  country  at  that  period,  desired  to 
have  a  similar  institution  established,  for  the  purpose 
of  correcting  the  evils  flowing  from  the  war  of  1812, 
in  the  same  manner  as  those  were  corrected  which 
grew  out  of  the  war  of  the  Revolution. 

Indeed,  the  question  of  renewing  the  charter  of  1791 
was  agitated  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Jeffer 
son.  In  1808  the  stockholders  of  the  old  bank  applied 
to  Congress  for  a  new  act  of  incorporation,  and  their 
memorial  was  referred  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas 
ury,  Mr.  Gallatin.  That  officer  made  his  report  in 
March,  1809,  and  recommended,  in  strong  and  decided 
terms,  the  reincorporation  of  the  bank.  But  the  Re 
publicans  were  then  in  a  large  majority  ;  Mr.  Jefferson 
was  well  known  to  be  opposed  to  a  national  bank,  on 
constitutional  grounds,  while  his  successor,  Mr.  Madi 
son,  entertained  similar  scruples ;  and  such  being  the 
opinions  of  the  leaders  of  the  party,  the  proposition 
was  not  favorably  considered.  A  bill  was  reported  at 
the  session  of  1809-10,  but  no  final  action  was  had 
upon  it.  The  subject  was  revived  the  following  year, 
and  bills  providing  for  the  renewal  of  the  charter  were 
introduced  into  both  houses  of  Congress.  In  the  House 
of  Representatives  the  matter  was  disposed  of  by  a 
vote  of  indefinite  postponement,  and  the  Senate  bill 


80  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1808-16. 

was  lost  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  vice-president. 
The  question  was  not  then  made  a  party  one,  although 
a  majority  of  the  Republican  members  appeared  to 
doubt  the  constitutionality  of  the  charter  proposed  to 
be  renewed.  Of  all  the  members  of  Congress,  how 
ever,  belonging  to  both  parties,  on  the  "  simple  ques 
tion  of  constitutionality,  there  was  a  decided  majority 
in  favor  of  it.3'* 

All  the  efforts  to  procure  a  renewal  of  the  charter  of 
the  old  bank  having  failed,  they  rested  undisturbed  un 
til  the  session  of  1813-14,  when  a  petition  was  presented 
in  the  House  of  Representatives  from  the  city  of  New 
York,  praying  for  the  incorporation  of  a  national  bank, 
with  a  capital  of  thirty  millions  of  dollars.  The  memo 
rial  was  referred  to  the  committee  of  ways  and  means, 
who  reported  adversely  to  the  prayer  of  the  petition. 
The  subjects  of  banking  and  the  currency  in  general 
had  attracted  the  attention  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  a  con 
siderable  degree,  but  they  were  yet  comparatively  new 
to  him.  At  this  time  he  was  favorably  impressed 
toward  a  national  bank.  The  constitutional  question 
seemed  to  him  to  have  been  disposed  of  by  the  legis 
lative  precedents  affirming  the  right  in  the  general 
government  to  charter  such  an  institution,  yet  it  does 
not  appear  that  he  was  entirely  decided  in  his  mind  in 
regard  to  this  point,  for  the  overruling  consideration 
with  him  undoubtedly  was,  that  a  bank  was  absolutely 
necessary,  in  his  judgment,  to  relieve  the  country  from 
the  existing  embarrassments.  Without  it,  as  he  and 
others  thought,  the  powers  expressly  granted  to  the 
general  government  could  not  be  exercised,  and  a  bank 
*  Letter  of  Mr.  Madison  to  Mr.  C.  J.  Ingersoll,  June  25,  1831. 


1813-16.]  HIS  VIEWS.  81 

was  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  a  mere  agent  requisite 
to  the  proper  and  appropriate  exercise  of  those  powers. 

The  Averse  report  of  the  committee  of  ways  and 
means  was  made  in  January,  1814,  and  on  the  4th  of 
February  following,  Mr.  Calhoun  offered  a  resolution 
instructing  the  committee  of  ways  and  means  to  inquire 
into  the  expediency  of  establishing  a  bank  in  the  Dis 
trict  of  Columbia.  The  committee  had  reported  against 
the  petition  from  New  York,  on  the  ground  that  the 
constitution  did  not  authorize  the  creation  of  corpora 
tions  within  the  territorial  limits  of  the  states.  This 
constitutional  difficulty  Mr.  Calhoun  desired  to  avoid, 
and  for  all  practical  purposes  he  thought  a  bank  located 
in  the  district  would  be  as  useful  as  that  which  had 
been  proposed  in  the  petition.  His  resolution  was 
agreed  to  without  opposition,  and  on  the  19th  of  Feb 
ruary,  the  committee  reported  a  bill  for  the  establish 
ment  of  a  national  bank  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
with  a  capital  of  thirty  millions  of  dollars.  The  prin 
ciple  of  this  bill  was  approved  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  Mr. 
Cheves,  and  Mr.  Grundy.  and  opposed  by  Mr.  Eppes, 
the  chairman  of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means  and 
the  son-in-law  of  Mr.  Jefferson,  and  by  Mr.  Seybert  of 
Pennsylvania.  Others  also  disapproved  of  the  bill,  for 
the  reason  that  it  contained  no  provision  for  the  estab 
lishment  of  branches  in  the  states.  A  motion  was 
therefore  made  to  engraft  this  feature  on  it,  which  re 
ceived  only  thirty-six  votes,  whereupon  no  further  ac 
tion  was  had  in  the  premises. 

But  the  finances  of  the  nation  were  in  an  alarming 
condition.  The  public  credit  was  depreciating  almost 
daily.  A  loan  of  twenty-five  millions  had  just  been 

4* 


82  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1813-16. 

authorized;  but  treasury  notes  were  seventeen  per  cent., 
and  government  stock  thirty  per  cent.,  below  par.  It 
was  difficult  to  withstand  the  influences  constantly 
urging  the  members  of  Congress  toward  a  national 
bank  as  the  great  panacea  which  would  surely  relieve 
the  country  from  the  disease  under  which  it  was  suffer 
ing.  Accordingly,  a  resolution  was  introduced  near 
the  close  of  the  session,  providing  for  the  appointment 
of  a  committee  to  inquire  into  the  expediency  of  estab 
lishing  a  national  bank.  The  Federal  members,  with  a 
portion  of  the  Republicans,  supported  a  motion  to  post 
pone  the  resolution  indefinitely.  The  motion  was  lost, 
Mr.  Calhoun  voting  in  the  negative,  and  the  committee 
was  appointed.-  Of  this  committee  Mr.  Calhoun  was  a 
member.  It  was  now  near  the  close  of  the  session,  and 
it  was  found  impossible  to  harmonize  the  conflicting 
opinions  and  views  prevailing  in  the  committee  in  time 
to  perfect  a  bill,  wherefore,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Grundy, 
the  chairman,  they  were  discharged  without  making 
any  report. 

Congress  was  again  called  together  in  September, 
1814,  and  on  the  18th  day  of  October,  a  copy  of  a 
letter  addressed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
Mr.  Dallas  of  Pennsylvania,  to  the  chairman  of  the 
committee  of  ways  and  means,  in  reply  to  an  inquiry 
as  to  the  means  necessary  to  revive  and  maintain,  un 
impaired,  the  public  credit,  was  laid  before  the  House 
of  Representatives.  Among  other  suggestions,  Mr. 
Dallas  recommended  the  establishment  of  a  national 
bank  as  "  the  only  efficient  remedy  for  the  disordered 
condition  of  the  circulating  medium."  The  leading 
features  of  the  plan  of  the  Secretary  were  a  bank  to 


1813-16.]  PLAN    OF    MR.    DALLAS.  83 

be  located  at  Philadelphia,  with  power  to  erect  offices 
of  discount  and  deposit  elsewhere,  whose  charter  was 
to  continue  for  a  period  of  twenty  years ;  the  capital 
to  be  fifty  millions  of  dollars,  three  fifths  of  which 
were  to  be  subscribed  by  corporations,  companies,  or 
individuals,  and  two  fifths  b}  ;ne  United  States ;  the 
subscriptions  of  corporations,  companies,  or  individ 
uals,  to  be  paid  one  fifth  in  gold  or  silver  coin,  and  the 
remainder  either  in  gold  or  silver  coin,  or  in  six  per 
cent,  stock  and  treasury  notes ;  the  subscription  of  the 
United  States  to  be  paid  in  six  per  cent,  stock ;  the 
bank  to  loan  the  United  States  thirty  millions  of  dol 
lars  to  carry  on  the  war,  at  such  period,  and  in  such 
sums,  as  might  be  convenient,  and  to  be  exempt  from 
any  obligation  to  pay  specie  during  the  war,  and  for 
three  years  after  its  termination. 

The  plan  proposed  by  Mr.  Dallas  was  approved  by 
the  President,  and  great  efforts  were  made  to  induce 
members  to  regard  it  favorably.  Mr.  Calhoun,  among 
others,  was  urgently  solicited  to  examine  the  project 
carefully,  and  if  satisfactory  to  him,  to  give  it  his  sup 
port.  Considering  the  object  had  in  contemplation — • 
the  maintenance  of  the  public  credit — Mr.  Dallas'  plan 
was  doubtless  well  calculated  to  accomplish  the  desired 
end.  But  predisposed  as  was  Mr.  Calhoun  to  a  na 
tional  institution  of  this  character,  an  examination  of 
the  plan  disclosed  features  as  odious  as  were  those  re 
vealed  to  the  fair  priestess  of  Bokhara,  when  the  silver 
veil  of  Mokanna  was  flung  aside  from  his  foul  visage. 
Stripped  of  all  disguise,  it  was  a  vast  government 
engine — a  gigantic  project  for  loaning  the  credit  of  the 
government  to  itself — a  scheme  for  the  incorporation 


84  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1813-16. 

of  the  creditors  of  the  United  States  with  power  to 
issue  notes  irredeemable  in  specie,  which  were  to  be 
received  in  payment  of  government  dues,  upon  loans 
at  six  per  cent.,  on  a  capital  or  basis  of  stock  upon 
which  they  were  receiving  all  the  while,  on  an  aver 
age,  at  least  eight  per  cent. 

Mr.  Calhoun  had  enjoyed  a  large  share  of  the  confi 
dence  and  regard  of  President  Madison,  but  he  could 
not  sanction  this  measure.  The  subject  was  discussed 
in  the  House,  and  he  voted  for  a  resolution  declaring 
that  it  was  "  expedient  to  establish  a  national  bank, 
with  branches  in  the  several  states  ;"*  but  further  than 
that  he  could  not  go  upon  this  question.  The  general 
principle  of  incorporating  a  bank  met  with  his  appro 
bation,  but  the  plan  before  the  House  was  in  all  its 
prominent  features  exceptionable  in  his  estimation. 

On  the  7th  of  November  the  committee  of  ways  and 
means  reported  a  bill,  in  conformity  with  the  resolution 
of  the  House,  to  incorporate  the  subscribers  to  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States.  A  long  and  interesting 
debate  ensued  upon  the  merits  of  the  question,  Mr. 
Calhoun  remaining  silent  until  the  second  section  of 
the  bill,  which  contained  the  objectionable  features, 
was  under  consideration.  He  addressed  the  House  on 
the  16th  of  November,  in  an  elaborate  speech,  setting 
forth  the  reasons  of  his  opposition  to  the  bill  in  its 
present  shape,  and  the  outlines  of  a  plan  which  he  had 
himself  prepared  as  a  substitute  for  the  former.  The 
outlines  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  project  were  :  u  The  capital 
of  the  bank  remaining  unchanged,  at  fifty  millions,  the 

*  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  3d  session,  13th  Congress, 
pp,  604,  505. 


1813-16.]  HIS    PROPOSITION.  85 

payments  of  subscriptions  to  this  capital  stock  to  be 
made  in  the  proportion  of  one  tenth  in  specie,  (which 
he  afterward  varied  to  six  fiftieths)  and  the  remainder 
in  specie,  or  in  treasury  notes,  to  be  hereafter  issued ; 
subscriptions  to  be  opened  monthly,  in  the  three  last 
days  of  each  month,  beginning  with  January  next 
[1815]  for  certain  proportions  of  the  stock,  until  the 
whole  is  subscribed  ;  payment  to  be  made  at  the  time 
of  subscribing ;  the  shares  to  consist  of  one  hundred, 
instead  of  five  hundred  dollars,  each ;  the  United  States 
to  hold  no  stock  in  the  bank,  have  no  agency  in  its 
disposal,  nor  control  over  its  operations,  nor  right  to 
suspend  specie  payments.  The  amount  of  treasury 
notes  to  be  subscribed,  viz.,  forty-five  millions,  to  be 
provided  for  by  future  acts  of  Congress,  and  to  be  dis 
posed  of  in  something  like  the  following  way,  viz.  : 
Fifteen  millions  of  the  amount  to  be  placed  in  the 
hands  of  the  agents,  appointed  for  the  purpose,  or  in 
the  hands  of  the  present  commissioners  of  the  sinking 
fund,  to  go  into  the  stock  market,  to  convert  the  treas 
ury  notes  into  stock  ;  another  sum,  say  five  millions,  to 
be  applied  to  the  redemption  of  the  treasury  notes  be 
coming  due  at  the  commencement  of  the  ensuing  year  ; 
the  remaining  twenty  millions  he  proposed  to  throw 
into  circulation  as  widely  as  possible.  They  might 
be  issued  in  such  proportions,  monthly,  as  to  be  ab 
sorbed  in  the  subscriptions  to  the  bank,  at  the  end  of 
each  month,  &c.  This  operation,  he  presumed,  would 
raise  the  value  of  treasury  notes,  perhaps  twenty  or 
thirty  per  cent,  above  par,  being  the  value  of  the  priv 
ilege  of  taking  the  bank  stock,  and  thus  afford,  at  the 
same  time,  a  bonus  and  an  indirect  loan  to  the  govern- 


86  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1813-16. 

ment ;  making  unnecessary  any  loan  by  the  bank,  un 
til  its  extended  circulation  of  paper  shall  enable  it  to 
make  a  loan  which  shall  be  advantageous  to  the  United 
States.  The  treasury  notes  so  to  be  issued  to  be  re 
deemable  in  stock,  at  six  per  cent.,  disposable  by  the 
bank  at  its  pleasure,  and  without  the  sanction  of  gov 
ernment  ;  to  whom  neither  is  the  bank  to  be  compelled 
to  loan  any  money.  This,  it  is  believed,  is,  in  a  few 
words,  a  fair  statement  of  the  pro  jet  of  Mr.  Calhoun, 
which  he  supported  by  a  variety  of  explanations  of  its 
operations,  &c. ;  the  notes  of  the  bank,  when  in  opera 
tion,  to  be  received  exclusively  in  the  payment  of  all 
taxes,  duties  and  debts,  to  the  United  States.  The 
operation  of  this  combined  plan,  Mr.  C.  conceived, 
would  be  to  afford,  1.  Relief  from  the  immediate  pres 
sure  on  the  treasury  ;  2.  A  permanent  elevation  of 
the  public  credit;  and  3.  A  permanent  and  safe  circu 
lating  medium  of  general  credit.  The  bank  should  go 
into  operation,  he  proposed,  in  April  next  [1815.]"* 

The  main  features  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  plan, — the  estab 
lishment  of  a  specie-paying  bank,  and  the  use  of  the 
government  of  its  own  credit  directly  in  the  shape  of 
treasury  notes,  to  be  afterward  funded  in  the  bank  in 
the  form  of  stock, — did  him  great  honor/  It  was  at 
tacked,  however,  by  Mr.  Fisk,  Mr.  Forsyth,  and  other 
leading  administration  members,  who  contended  that 
ihe  present  absorption  of  the  United  States'  stock  should 
be  provided  for.  and  that  the  circulation  and  disposal 
of  such  an  immense  mass  of  treasury  notes  would  be 
lUU^.Jed  \viih  great  difficulty.  In  the  defence  of  his 
project,  Mr.  Calhoun  received  the  cooperation  of  his 

*  History  of  the  Bauk  of  the  United  States,  p.  495. 


1813-16.]    DEFEAT  OF  MR.  DALLAS'  PLAX.         87 

gifted  colleague,  Mr.  Lowndes,  and  was  likewise  ably 
seconded  by  Mr.  Oakley  of  New  York.  The  substitute 
was  finally  adopted,  instead  of  the  original  plan  reported 
by  the  committee,  by  a  very  large  majority,  but  it  was 
in  its  turn  defeated,  probably  through  the  influence  of 
the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  who  expressed  himself 
very  strongly  against  the  issue  of  so  large  an  amount 
of  treasury  notes  as  was  contemplated.* 

Another  bill  was  then  perfected  in  the  Senate,  con 
forming  substantially  to  the  recommendations  of  Mr. 
Dallas,  and  containing  a  clause  empowering  the  pro 
posed  bank  to  suspend  specie  payments  in  certain  con 
tingencies  during  the  war  and  one  year  thereafter.  Re 
peated  efforts  were  made  in  the  House,  by  Mr.  Calhoun 
and  others,  to  amend  the  bill  in  such  a  manner  as  that 
the  bank  would  be  a  specie-paying  institution,  but  they 
ail  failed  of  success.  On  taking  the  final  vote  on  the 
passage  of  the  bill,  there  was  a  tie.  Mr.  Calhoun  voted 
in  the  negative  against  the  bill.  The  Speaker,  Mr. 
Cheves,  now  availed  himself  of  his  privilege,  and  voted 
in  the  negative ;  consequently  the  bill  was  declared 
lost. 

All  parties,  however,  appeared  to  be  in  favor  of  the 
passage  of  the  bank  bill,  and  it  still  seemed  possible  to 
reconcile  the  conflicting  opinions.  A  third  effort  was 
therefore  made  by  the  adoption  of  a  motion  to  recon 
sider  the  last  vote.  Mr.  Calhoun  voted  for  the  recon 
sideration,  though  at  the  same  time  declaring  that  he 
was  totally  opposed  to  the  bill.  It  was  then  amended 
by  reducing  the  capital  stock,  and  striking  out  the  forced 

*  The  capital  stock  of  the  bill  had  previously  been  reduced  to  thirty- 
millions  of  dollars. 


88  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1813-16. 

loan  feature,  and  the  section  authorizing  the  suspension 
of  payments  in  specie.  As  amended,  the  bill  passed 
the  House  on  the  7th  of  January,  1815,  by  a  vote  of 
120  to  37,  Mr.  Calhoun  voting  in  its  favor.  The 
Senate  after  some  hesitation  concurred  in  the  amend 
ments,  and  the  bill  was  sent  to  the  President,  who  re 
turned  it  with  his  objections — based,  not  on  the  uncon 
stitutionally  of  the  measure,  but  on  the  ground  that  it 
would  not  afford  the  necessary  relief  to  the  treasury. 

The  session  was  now  rapidly  wearing  away,  and 
nothing  had  been  done.  Still  another  effort  was  there 
fore  made  to  pass  a  bill.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  urgently 
entreated  by  many  of  his  warmest  friends  to  cease  his 
opposition  to  the  plan  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
The  often-cited  maxim,  "  inter  arma  silent  leges — ne- 
cessitas  non  habet  legem,"  was  repeatedly  uttered  in 
his  hearing.  But  he  steadily  resisted  every  importunity, 
and  with  that  proud  independence  of  party  obligations, 
which  ever  characterized  him,  refused  to  yield  a  single 
one  of  his  dearly-cherished  principles. 

A  new  bill,  according  very  nearly  with  the  project 
originally  recommended  by  Mr.  Dallas,  was  promptly 
passed  in  the  Senate,  on  the  llth  day  of  February,  and 
forthwith  sent  to  the  House.  Intelligence  of  the  con 
clusion  of  the  treaty  of  peace  had  now  been  received, 
and  as  the  necessity  for  the  adoption  of  the  measure 
was  not  so  imminent,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Lowndes,  the 
bill  was  indefinitely  postponed,  in  order  to  give  time  for 
that  reflection  necessary  to  produce  harmonious  ac 
tion.  Though  disapproving  of  the  bill,  Mr.  Calhoun 
voted  against  the  postponement. 

At  the  following  session  of  Congress,  commencing  in 


1813-16.]  BILL    REPORTED    BY    HIM.  89 

December,  1815,  the  President  recommended,  in  his 
annual  message,  that  a  uniform  national  currency 
should  in  some  way  be  provided,  and  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  repeated  his  suggestions,  in  a  somewhat 
modified  form,  in  regard  to  a  national  bank.  That  por 
tion  of  the  President's  message  having  reference  to  a 
uniform  national  currency,  was  referred  to  a  select 
committee  of  which  Mr.  Calhoun  was  made  chairman. 
The  restoration  of  peace  and  tranquillity  had  removed 
many  of  the  causes  which  had  induced  the  insertion  of 
the  objectionable  features  in  previous  bank  bills,  and 
there  seemed  now  to  be  but  very  little  diversity  of 
opinion. 

On  the  8th  of  January,  1816,  Mr.  Calhoun  made  an 
able  and  elaborate  report  from  the  committee  on  the 
currency,  accompanied  with  a  bill  for  the  incorporation 
of  a  national  bank,  as  "  the  most  certain  means  of  re 
storing  to  the  nation  a  specie  currency."  This  bill, 
with  some  few  modifications,  subsequently  became  a 
law,  and  was  known  as  the  bank  charter  of  1816. 

The  currency  question  was  justly  regarded  as  the 
most  difficult  one  considered  at  this  important  session. 
"  All  the  banks  of  the  states  south  of  New  England 
had,  at  an  early  period  of  the  war,  stopped  payment, 
and  gold  and  silver  had  entirely  disappeared,  leaving 
within  their  limits  no  other  currency  than  the  notes  of 
banks,  that  either  would  not  or  could  not  redeem  them. 
Government  was  forced  to  submit,  and  not  only  to  col 
lect  its  taxes  and  dues,  and  make  its  disbursements, 
and  negotiate  its  loans  in  their  discredited  and  depre 
ciated  paper,  but  also  to  use  them,  at  the  same  time,  as 
the  agents  of  the  treasury  and  depositories  of  its  funds. 


90  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1813-16. 

At  first  the  depreciation  was  inconsiderable,  but  it  con 
tinued  to  increase,  though  unequally,  in  the  different 
portions  of  the  Union  to  the  end  of  the  war.  It  was 
then  hoped  it  would  stop ;  but  the  fact  proved  far 
otherwise ;  for  the  progress  of  depreciation  became 
more  rapid  and  unequal  than  ever.  It  was  greatest  at 
the  centre  (the  District  of  Columbia  and  the  adjacent 
region),  where  it  had  reached  20  per  cent.,  as  com 
pared  with  Boston  ;  nor  was  there  the  least  prospect 
that  it  would  terminate  of  itself.  It  became  absolutely 
necessary,  in  this  state  of  things,  for  the  government 
to  adopt  the  rule  of  collecting  its  taxes  and  dues  in  the 
local  currency  of  the  place,  to  prevent  that  which  was 
most  depreciated  from  flooding  the  whole  Union ;  for 
the  public  debtors,  if  they  had  the  option,  would  be 
sure  to  pay  in  the  most  depreciated.  But  the  neces 
sary  effect  of  this  was  to  turn  the  whole  import  trade 
of  the  country  towards  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  the  region 
where  the  depreciation  was  the  greatest.  By  making 
entry  there,  the  duties  could  be  paid  in  the  local  de 
preciated  currency,  and  the  goods  then  shipped  where 
they  were  wanted.  The  result  of  the  rule,  though  un 
avoidable,  was  to  act  as  a  premium  for  depreciation. 
It  was  impossible  to  tolerate  such  a  state  of  things.  It 
was  in  direct  hostility  to  the  constitution,  which  pro 
vides  that  '  all  duties,  imposts,  and  excises  shall  be  uni 
form  throughout  the  United  States,'  and  that  '  no  pref 
erence  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce 
or  revenue  to  the  ports  of  one  state  over  another.' 
Thus  the  only  question  was,  What  shall  be  done  ? 

"  The  administration  was  in  favor  of  a  bank,  and 
the  President  (Mr.  Madison)  recommended  one  in  his 


1813—16.]     CHAIRMAN  OF  THE  CURRENCY  COMMITTEE.     91 

Message  at  the  commencement  of  the  session.  The 
great  body  of  the  Republican  party  in  Congress  con 
curred  in  the  views  of  the  administration,  but  there 
were  many  of  them  who  had,  on  constitutional  grounds, 
insuperable  objections  to  the  measure.  These,  added 
to  the  Federal  party,  who  had  been  against  the  war, 
and  were,  in  consequence,  against  a  bank,  constituted 
a  formidable  opposition. 

"  Mr.  Calhoun,  whose  first  lesson  on  the  subject  of 
banks,  taken  at  the  preceding  session,  was  not  calcu 
lated  to  incline  him  to  such  an  institution,  was  averse 
in  the  abstract,  to  the  whole  system ;  but  perceiving 
then  no  other  way  of  relieving  government  from  its 
difficulties,  he  yielded  to  the  opinion  that  a  bank  was 
indispensable.  The  separation  of  the  government  and 
the  banks  was  at  that  time  out  of  the  question.  A 
proposition  of  the  kind  would  have  been  rejected  on 
all  sides.  Nor  was  it  possible  then  to  collect  the  taxes 
and  dues  of  the  government  in  specie.  It  had  been 
almost  entirely  expelled  the  country ;  there  appeared 
to  be  no  alternative  but  to  yield  to  a  state  of  things 
to  which  no  radical  remedy  could  at  that  time  be  ap 
plied,  and  to  resort  to  a  bank  to  mitigate  the  evils  of  a 
system  which  in  its  then  state  was  intolerable.  This, 
at  least,  was  the  view  which  Mr.  Calhoun  took,  and 
which  he  expressed  in  his  speech  on  taking  up  the  bill 
for  discussion."* 

The  speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  delivered  on  the 
26th  of  February.  It  was  decidedly  one  of  his  ablest 
efforts,  and  occupied  nearly  three  hours  in  its  delivery. 
A  full  report  of  it  has  not  been  preserved,  but  the  fol- 

*  Memoir  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  1843. 


92  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1813-16. 

lowing  synopsis  will  give  the  reader  some  idea  of  its 
character : 


SPEECH    ON    THE    BANK    BILL, 

Mr.  Calhoun  rose  to  explain  his  views  of  a  subject  so  interesting  to 
the  republic,  and  so  necessary  to  be  correctly  understood,  as  that  of 
the  bill  now  before  the  committee.  He  proposed  at  this  time  only  to 
discuss  general  principles,  without  reference  to  details.  He  was  aware, 
he  said,  that  principle  and  detail  might  be  united  ;  but  he  should  at 
present  keep  them  distinct.  He  did  not  propose  to  comprehend  in  this 
discussion,  the  power  of  Congress  to  grant  Bank  Charters ;  nor  the 
question  whether  the  general  tendency  of  banks  was  favorable  or  un 
favorable  to  the  liberty  and  prosperity  of  the  country  ;  nor  the  ques 
tion  whether  a  National  Bank  would  be  favorable  to  the  operations  of 
the  government.  To  discuss  these  questions,  he  conceived,  would  be 
a  useless  consumption  of  time.  The  constitutional  question  had  been 
already  so  freely  and  frequently  discussed,  that  all  had  made  up  their 
mind  on  it.  The  question  whether  banks  were  favorable  to  public 
liberty  and  prosperity,  was  one  purely  speculative:  The  fact  of  the 
existence  of  banks,  and  their  incorporation  with  the  commercial  con 
cerns  and  industry  of  the  nation,  proved  that  inquiry  to  come  too  late. 
The  only  question  was,  on  this  hand,  under  what  modifications  were 
banks  most  useful,  and  whether  the  United  States  ought  or  ought  not 
to  exercise  the  power  to  establish  a  bank.  As  to  the  question  whether 
a  National  Bank  would  be  favorable  to  the  administration  of  the  finan 
ces  of  the  government,  it  was  one  on  which  there  was  so  little  doubt, 
that  gentlemen  would  excuse  him  if  he  did  not  enter  into -it.  Leaving 
all  these  questions  then,  Mr.  C.  said,  he  proposed  to  examine  the  cause 
and  state  of  the  disorders  of  the  national  currency,  and  the  question 
whether  it  was  in  the  power  of  Congress,  by  establishing  a  National 
Bank,  to  remove  those  disorders.  This,  he  observed,  was  a  question 
of  novelty  and  vital  importance ;  a  question  which  greatly  affected  the 
character  and  prosperity  of  the  country. 

As  to  the  state  of  the  currency  of  the  nation,  Mr.  C.  proceeded  to 
remark — that  it  was  extremely  depreciated,  and  in  degrees  varying  ac 
cording  to  the  different  sections  of  the  country,  all  would  assent.  That 
this  state  of  the  currency  was  a  stain  on  public  and  private  credit,  and 
injurious  to  the  morals  of  the  community,  was  so  clear  a  position  as  to 


1813-16.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    BANK    BILL.  93 

require  no  proof.  There  were,  however,  other  considerations  arising 
from  the  state  of  the  currency  not  so  distinctly  felt,  not  so  generally- 
assented  to.  The  state  of  our  circulating  medium  was,  he  said,  opposed 
to  the  principles  of  the  federal  constitution.  The  power  was  given  to 
Congress  by  that  instrument  in  express  terms  to  regulate  the  currency 
of  the  United  States.  In  point  of  fact,  he  said,  that  power,  though 
jiven  to  Congress,  is  not  in  their  hands.  The  power  is  exercised  by 
banking  institutions,  no  longer  responsible  for  the  correctness  with 
which  they  manage  it.  Gold  and  silver  have  disappear ed- entirely ; 
there  is  no  money  but  paper  money,  and  that  money  is  beyond  the 
control  of  Congress.  No  one,  he  said,  who  referred  to  the  constitution, 
could  doubt  that  the  money  of  the  United  States  was  intended  to  be 
placed  entirely  under  the  control  of  Congress.  The  only  object  the 
framers  of  the  constitution  could  have  in  view  in  giving  to  Congress 
the  power  "  to  coin  money,  regulate  the  value  thereof  and  of  foreign 
coin,"  must  have  been,  to  give  a  steadiness  and  fixed  value  to  the  cur 
rency  of  the  United  States.  The  state  of  things  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  the  constitution,  afforded  Mr.  C.  an  argument  in  support 
of  his  construction.  There  then  existed,  he  said,  a  depreciated  paper 
currency,  which  could  only  be  regulated  and  made  uniform  by  giving 
a  power  for  that  purpose  to  the  general  government :  The  states  could 
not  do  it.  He  argued,  therefore,  taking  into  view  the  prohibition 
against  the  states  issuing  bills  of  credit,  that  there  was  a  strong  pre 
sumption  this  power  was  intended  to  be  exclusively  given  to  Congress. 
Mr.  C.  acknowledged  there  Avas  no  provision  in  the  constitution  by 
which  states  were  prohibited  from  creating  the  banks  which  now  exer 
cised  this  power ;  but,  he  said,  banks  were  then  but  little  known — there 
was  but  one,  the  Bank  of  North  America,  with  a  capital  of  only 
400,000  dollars ;  and  the  universal  opinion  was,  that  bank  notes  repre 
sented  gold  and  silver,  and  that  there  could  be  no  necessity  to  prohibit 
banking  institutions  under  this  impression,  because  their  notes  always 
represented  gold  and  silver,  and  they  could  not  be  multiplied  beyond 
the  demands  of  the  country.  Mr.  C.  drew  the  distinction  between 
b|cks  of  deposit  and  banks  of  discount,  the  latter  of  which  were  then 
but  little  understood — and  their  abuse  not  conceived  until  demonstrated 
by  recent  experience.  No  man,  he  remarked,  in  the  Convention,  much 
talent  and  wisdom  as  it  contained,  could  possibly  have  foreseen  the 
course  of  these  institutions ;  that  they  would  have  multiplied  from 
one  to  two  hundred  and  sixty  ;  from  a  capital  of  400,000  dollars  to  one 


94  JOHN    CALDWELT.    CALHOUN.  [1813-16. 

of  eighty  millions ;  from  being  consistent  with  the  provisions  of  the 
constitution,  and  the  exclusive  right  of  Congress  to  regulate  the  cur 
rency,  that  they  would  be  directly  opposed  to  it ;  that  so  far  from  their 
credit  depending  on  their  punctuality  in  redeeming  their  bills  with 
specie,  they  might  go  on  ad  infinitum  in  violation  of  their  contract, 
without  a  dollar  in  their  vaults.  There  had,  indeed,  Mr.  C.  said,  been 
an  extraordinary  revolution  in  the  currency  of  the  country.  By  a  sort 
of  under-current,  the  power  of  Congress  to  regulate  the  money  of  the 
country  had  caved  in,  and  upon  its  ruin  had  sprung  up  those  institu 
tions  which  now  exercised  the  right  of  making  money  for  and  in  the 
United  States — for  gold  and  silver  are  not  the  only  money,  but  what 
ever  is  the  medium  of  purchase  and  sale,  in  which  bank  paper  alone 
was  now  employed,  and  had,  therefore,  become  the  money  of  the  coun 
try.  A  change,  great  and  wonderful,  has  taken  place,  said  he,  which 
divests  you  of  your  rights,  and  turns  you  back  to  the  condition  of  the 
revolutionary  war,  in  which  every  state  issued  bills  of  credit,  which 
were  made  a  legal  tender,  and  were  of  various  value. 

This  then,  Mr.  C.  said,  was  the  evil  We  have  in  lieu  of  gold  and 
silver  a  paper  medium,  unequally  but  generally  depreciated,  which 
affects  the  trade  and  industry  of  the  nation ;  which  paralyzes  the  na 
tional  arm ;  which  sullies  the  faith,  both  public  and  private,  of  the 
United  States ;  a  paper  no  longer  resting  on  gold  and  silver  as  its 
basis.  We  have  indeed  laws  regulating  the  currency  of  foreign  coin  ; 
but  they  are  under  present  circumstances  a  mockery  of  legislation,  be 
cause  there  is  no  coin  in  circulation.  The  right  of  making  money,  an 
attribute  of  sovereign  power,  a  sacred  and  important  right,  was  exer 
cised  by  two  hundred  and  sixty  banks,  scattered  over  every  part  of 
the  United  States,  not  responsible  to  any  power  whatever  for  their 
issues  of  paper.  The  next  and  great  inquiry  was,  he  said,  how  this 
evil  was  to  be  remedied  ?  Restore,  said  he,  these  institutions  to  their 
original  use ;  cause  them  to  give  up  their  usurped  power ;  cause  them 
to  return  to  their  legitimate  office  of  places  of  discount  and  deposit ; 
let  them  be  no  longer  mere  paper  machines;  restore  the  state  of 
things  which  existed  anterior  to  1813,  which  was  consistent  with  the 
just  policy  and  interests  of  the  country ;  cause  them  to  fulfil  their  con 
tracts,  to  respect  their  broken  faith;  resolve  that  everywhere  there 
shall  be  an  uniform  value  to  the  national  currency ;  your  constitutional 
control  will  then  prevail. 

How,  then,  he  proceeded  to  examine,  was  this  desirable  end  to  be 


1813-16.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    BANK    BILL.  95 

attained  ?  What  difficulties  stood  in  the  way  ?  The  reason  why  the 
banks  could  not  now  comply  with  their  contract  was  that  conduct  which 
in  private  life  frequently  produces  the  same  effect.  It  was  owing  to 
the  prodigality  of  their  engagements  without  means  to  fulfil  them ;  to 
their  issuing  more  paper  than  they  could  possibly  redeem  with  specie. 
In  the  United  States,  according  to  the  best  estimation,  there  were  not  in 
the  vaults  of  all  the  banks  more  than  fifteen  millions  of  specie,  with  a 
capital  amounting  to  about  eighty -two  millions  of  dollars :  hence  the 
cause  of  the  depreciation  of  bank  notes — the  excess  of  paper  in  circula 
tion  beyond  that  of  specie  in  their  vaults.  This  excess  was  visible  to  the 
eye,  and  almost  audible  to  the  ear ;.  so  familiar  was  the  fact,  that  this 
paper  was  emphatically  called  trash  or  rags.  According  to  estimation, 
also,  he  said,  there  were  in  circulation  at  the  same  date,  within  the 
United  States,  two  hundred  millions  of  dollars  of  bank  notes,  credits, 
and  bank  paper,  in  one  shape  or  other.  Supposing  thirty  millions  of 
these  to  be  in  possession  of  the  banks  themselves,  there  were  perhaps 
one  hundred  and  seventy  millions  actually  in  circulation,  or  on  which 
the  banks  draw  interest.  The  proportion  between  the  demand  and 
supply  which  regulates  the  price  of  everything,  regulates  also  the  value 
of  this  paper.  In  proportion  as  the  issue  is  excessive,  it  depreciates  in 
value — and  no  wonder,  when,  since  1810  or  1811,  the  amount  of  paper 
in  circulation  had  increased  from  eighty  or  ninety  to  two  hundred  mil 
lions.  Mr.  C.  here  examined  the  opinion  entertained  by  some  gentle 
men,  that  bank  paper  had  not  depreciated,  but  that  gold  and  silver  had 
appreciated,  a  position  he  denied  by  arguments  founded  on  the  portabil 
ity  of  gold  and  silver,  which  would  equalize  their  value  in  every  part 
of  the  United  States,  and  on  the  facts  that  gold  and  silver  coin  had  in 
creased  in  quantity  instead  of  diminishing,  and  that  the  exchange  with 
Great  Britain  had  been  (at  gold  and  silver  value)  for  some  time  past  in 
favor  of  the  United  States.  Yet,  he  said,  gold  and  silver  were  leaving 
our  shores.  In  fact,  we  have  degraded  the  metallic  currency ;  we  have 
treated  it  with  indignity,  it  leaves  us,  and  seeks  an  asylum  on  foreign 
shores.  Let  it  become  again  the  basis  of  bank  transactions,  and  it  will 
revisit  us.  Having  established,  as  he  conceived,  in  the  course  of  his 
remarks,  that  the  excess  of  paper  issue  was  the  true  and  only  cause  of 
depreciation  of  our  paper  currency  t  Mr.  C.  turned  his  attention  to  the 
manner  in  which  that  excess  had  been  produced.  It  was  intimately 
connected  with  the  suspension  of  specie  payments ;  they  stood  as  cause 
and  effect :  first,  the  excessive  issues  caused  the  suspension  of  specie 


96  JOHN    CALDWELL    CA.LHOUN.  [1813-16. 

payments ;  and  advantage  had  been  taken  of  that  suspension  to  issue 
still  greater  floods  of  it.  The  banks  had  undertaken  to  do  a  new  busi 
ness,  uncongenial  with  the  nature  of  such  institutions :  they  undertook 
to  make  long  loans  to  government,  not  as  brokers,  but  as  stockholders — • 
a  practice  wholly  inconsistent  with  the  system  of  specie  payments. 
After  showing  the  difference  between  the  ordinary  business  of  a  bank  in 
discounts,  and  the  making  loans  for  twelve  years,  Mr.  C.  said,  indispu 
tably  the  latter  practice  was  a  great  and  leading  cause  of  the  suspen 
sion  of  specie  payments.  Of  this  species  of  property  (public  stock)  the 
banks  in  the  United  States  held  on  the  30th  day  of  September  last, 
about  eighteen  and  a  half  million.-;,  and  a  nearly  equal  amount  of  Treas 
ury  Notes,  besides  stock  for  long  loans  made  to  the  state  governments, 
amounting  altogether  to  within  a  small  amount  of  forty  millions,  being 
a  large  proportion  of  their  actual  capital.  This,  he  said,  was  the  great 
cause  of  the  suspension  of  specie  payments.  Had  the  banks  (he  now 
discussed  the  question)  the  capacity  to  resume  specie  payments  ?  If 
they  have  the  disposition,  he  said,  they  may  resume  specie  payments. 
The  banks  are  not  insolvent,  he  said :  they  never  were  more  solvent. 
If  so,  the  term  itself  implies,  that,  if  time  be  allowed  them,  they  may 
before  long  be  in  a  condition  to  resume  payment  of  specie.  If  the  banks 
would  regularly  and  consentaneously  begin  to  dispose  of  their  stock, 
to  call  in  their  notes  for  the  Treasury  Notes  they  have,  and  moderately 
curtail  their  private  discounts ;  if  they  would  act  in  concert  in  this  man 
ner,  they  might  resume  specie  payments.  If  they  were  to  withdraw  by 
the  sale  of  a  partonly  of  their  stock  and  Treasury  Notes,  twenty-five 
millions  of  their  notes  from  circulation,  the  rest  would  be  appreciated  to 
par,  or  nearly,  and  they  would  still  have  fifteen  millions  of  stock  dis 
posable  to  send  to  Europe  for  specie,  (fee.  With  thirty  millions  of  dol 
lars  in  their  banks,  and  so  much  of  their  paper  withdrawn  from  circula 
tion,  they  would  be  in  a  condition  to  resume  payments  in  specie.  The 
only  difficulty,  that  of  producing  concert,  was  one  which  it  belonged  to 
Congress  to  surmount.  The  indisposition  of  the  banks,  from  motives  of 
interest,  obviously  growing  out  of  the  vast  profits  most  of  them  have 
lately  realized,  by  which  the  stockholders  have  realized  from  twelve  to 
twenty  per  cent,  on  their  stock,  would  be,  he  showed,  the  greatest  ob 
stacle.  What,  he  asked,  was  a  bank  ?  An  institution,  under  present 
uses,  to  make  money.  What  was  the  instinct  of  such  an  institution  ? 
Gain,  gain ;  nothing  but  gain :  and  they  would  not  willingly  relinquish 
their  gain  from  the  present  state  of  things,  which  was  profitable  to  them, 


1813-16.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    BANK    BILL.  97 

acting  as  they  did  without  restraint,  and  without  hazard.  Those  who 
believe  that  the  present  state  of  things  would  ever  cure  itself,  Mr.  C. 
said,  must  believe  what  is  impossible :  banks  must  change  their  nature, 
lay  aside  their  instinct,  before  they  will  aid  in  doing  what  it  is  not  their 
interest  to  do.  By  this  process  of  reasoning,  he  came  to  the  conclusion, 
that  it  rested  with  Congress  to  make  them  return  to  specie  payments,  by 
making  it  their  interest  to  do  so.  This  introduced  the  subject  of  the 
National  Bank. 

A  national  bank,  he  said,  paying  specie  itself,  would  have  a  tendency 
to  make  specie  payments  general,  as  well  by  its  influence  as  by  its  ex 
ample.  It  will  be  the  interest  of  the  national  bank  to  produce  this 
state  of  things,  because  otherwise  its  operations  will  be  greatly  circum 
scribed,  as  it  must  pay  out  specie  or  national  bank  notes:  for  he  pre 
sumed  one  of  the  first  rules  of  such  a  bank  would  be  to  take  the  notes  of 
no  bank  which  did  not  pay  in  gold  and  silver.  A  national  bank  of  thirty- 
five  millions,  with  the  aid  of  those  banks  which  are  at  once  ready  to  pay 
specie,  would  produce  a  powerful  effect  all  over  the  Union.  Further,  a 
national  bank  would  enable  the  government  to  resort  to  measures 
which  would  make  it  unprofitable  to  banks  to  continue  the  violation  of 
their  contracts,  and  advantageous  to  return  to  the  observation  of  them. 
The  leading  measure  of  this  character  would  be  to  strip  the  banks  re 
fusing  to  pay  specie  of  all  the  profits  arising  from  the  business  of  the 
government,  to  prohibit  deposits  with  them,  and  to  refuse  to  receive 
their  notes  in  payment  of  dues  to  the  government.  How  far  such  meas 
ures  would  be  efficacious  in  producing  a  return  to  specie  payments,  he 
was  unable  to  say — but  it  was  as  far  as  he  would  be  willing  to  go  at 
the  present  session.  If  they  persisted  in  refusing  to  resume  payments  in 
specie,  Congress  must  resort  to  measures  of  a  deeper  tone,  which  they 
had  in  their  power. 

The  restoration  of  specie  payments,  Mr.  C.  argued,  would  remove  the 
embarrassments  on  the  industry  of  the  country,  and  the  stains  from  its 
public  and  private  faith.  It  remained  to  see  whether  this  house,  with 
out  whose  aid  it  was  in  vain  to  expect  success  in  this  object,  would  have 
the  fortitude  to  apply  the  remedy.  If  this  was  not  the  proper  remedy, 
he  hoped  it  would  be  shown  by  the  proposition  of  a  proper  substitute, 
and  not  opposed  by  vague  and  general  declamation  against  banks.  The 
disease,  he  said,  was  deep ;  it  affected  public  opinion — and  whatever 
affects  public  opinion  touches  the  vitals  of  the  government.  Hereafter, 
he  said,  Congress  would  never  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  this  meas- 

5 


98  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1813-16. 

ure  in  which  they  now  did.  The  disease  arose  in  time  of  war — the  war 
had  subsided,  but  left  the  disease,  which  it  was  now  in  the  power  of 
Congress  to  eradicate — but,  if  they  did  not  now  exercise  the  power,  they 
would  become  abettors  of  a  state  of  things  which  was  of  vital  conse 
quence  to  public  morality,  as  he  showed  by  various  illustrations.  He 
called  upon  the  house,  as  guardians  of  the  public  weal,  of  the  health  of 
the  body  politic  which  depended  on  the  public  morals,  to  interpose 
against  a  state  of  things  which  was  inconsistent  with  either.  He  ap 
pealed  to  the  house,  too,  as  the  guardians  of  public  and  private  faith. 
In  what  manner,  he  asked,  were  the  public  contracts  fulfilled  ?  In  gold 
and  silver,  in  which  the  government  had  stipulated  to  pay  ?  No ;  in 
paper  issued  by  these  institutions;  in  paper  greatly  depreciated;  in 
paper  depreciated  from  five  to  twenty  per  cent,  below  the  currency  in 
which  the  government  had  contracted  to  pay,  ttc.  He  added  another 
argument — the  inequality  of  taxation,  in  consequence  of  the  state  of  the 
circulating  medium,  which,  notwithstanding  the  taxes  were  laid  with 
strict  regard  to  the  constitutional  provision  for  their  equality,  made  the 
people  in  one  section  of  the  Union  pay  perhaps  one  fifth  more  of  the 
same  tax  than  those  in  another.  The  constitution  having  given  Con 
gress  the  power  to  remedy  these  evils,  they  were,  he  contended,  deeply 
responsible  for  their  continuance. 

The  evil  he  desired  to  remedy,  Mr.  C.  said,  was  a  deep  one ;  almost 
incurable,  because  connected  with  public  opinion,  over  which  banks  have 
a  great  control — they  have,  in  a  great  measure,  a  control  over  the  press ; 
for  proof  of  which  he  referred  to  the  fact,  that  the  present  wretched 
etate  of  the  circulating  medium  had  scarcely  been  denounced  by  a 
single  paper  within  the  United  States.  The  derangement  of  a  circulat 
ing  medium,  he  said,  was  a  joint  thrown  out  of  its  socket ;  let  it  remain 
for  a  short  time  in  that  state,  and  the  sinews  will  be  so  knit,  that  it 
cannot  be  replaced — apply  the  remedy  soon,  and  it  is  an  operation 
easy  though  painful.  The  evil  grows,  whilst  the  resistance  to  it  be 
comes  weak ;  and,  unless  checked  at  once,  will  become  irresistible. 
Mr.  C.  concluded  the  speech  of  which  the  above  is  a  mere  outline, 
which  the  imagination  of  the  reader  must  fill  up,  by  observing,  that  he 
could  have  said  much  more  on  this  important  subject,  but  he  knew 
how  difficult  it  was  to  gain  the  attention  of  the  house  to  long  ad 
dresses. 


The  foregoing  is,  indeed,  but  a  meagre  sketch  of 


1813-16.]  PASSAGE    OF    THE    BILL.  99 

Mr.  Calhoun's  speech,  yet  it  will  suffice  to  show  his 
position  at  that  period.  The  question  of  the  constitu 
tionality  of  a  national  bank  he  did  not  consider.  He 
seems  to  have  regarded  it  as  a  settled  one,  and  advo 
cated  the  incorporation  of  a  bank  as  a  matter  of  neces 
sity  and  expediency, — as  "  the  only  adequate  resource," 
in  the  language  of  President  Madison,  "  to  relieve  the 
country  and  the  government  from  the  present  embar 
rassment."  It  was  necessary,  to  enable  the  govern 
ment  to  provide  a  constitutional  currency  for  the  peo 
ple,  and  highly  expedient  as  one  of  the  features  in  a 
general  system  of  preparation  against  the  manifold 
evils  arising  out  of  a  state  of  war  from  which  the 
country  had  just  escaped. 

Mr.  Calhoun  defended  the  bill  throughout  the  whole 
debate  with  great  ability,  and  it  finally  passed  the 
House  on  the  14th  of  March,  1816,  by  a  vote  of  80  to 
71,  his  name  being  recorded  in  favor  of  its  passage 
The  bill  likewise  received  a  favorable  vote  in  the  Sen 
ate,  and  being  approved  by  the  President,  became  the 
law  of  the  land. 


CHAPTER  V. 

Changes  in  Politics — Consistency  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Resolution  of  1816 — 
The  Direct  Tax — Speech — Tariff  Act  of  1816 — Views  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
— Principle  of  the  Law — The  Military  Academy — The  Compensation 
Act  —  Temporary  Displeasure  of  his  Constituents  —  Internal  Im 
provements — Veto  of  Mr.  Madison. 

How  true  is  it  that  there  are  no  absolute  rules  in 
politics. — that  the  occasion  often  serves  to  establish  the 
principle,  rather  than  the  principle  to  govern  the  oc 
casion. 

Truth  has  no  attribute — not  her  simplicity  nor  her 
beauty — more  lovely  than  her  consistency  with  herself. 
Her  principles  are  unchanging  and  unchangeable, — 

"  The  eternal  years  of  God  are  hers  !" 

The  great  laws  of  Nature  endure  forever ;  they  are 
^j,  permanent  and  as  immovable  as  He  who  established 
them.  The  earth  and  its  sister  orbs,  although  ages 
have  elapsed  since  the  period  of  their  creation,  con 
tinue  to  move  on  in  the  courses  to  which  they  have 
been  accustomed  from  the  beginning.  The  bow  of 
promise  displays  the  same  gorgeous  colors,  as  when  it 
first  broke,  like  some  blessed  vision,  on  the  raptured 
gaze  of  Noah  and  his  family.  One  season  is  succeeded 
by  another,  in  the  appointed  order.  The  storm  alter 
nates  with  the  sunshine,  the  flower  blossoms  and  per- 


1815-16.]  CHANGES    IN    POLITICS.  101 

ishes,  and  life  and  vigor  are  followed  by  decrepitude 
and  decay ;  yet  all  is  in  accordance  with  a  system,  a 
harmony,  and  a  law. 

But  whatever  bears  the  impress  of  humanity,  or  is 
of  human  invention,  is  constantly  altering  its  char 
acter,  and  presenting  itself  in  some  new  shape  or  ap 
pearance.  Two  spirits — the  spirit  of  preservation  and 
the  spirit  of  destruction — are  continually  warring 
against  each  other.  Conservatism  and  Progress,  like 
the  good  and  the  bad  angel,  are  ever  striving  for  the 
ascendency ;  the  former  clinging  with  tenacity  to 
whatsoever  the  past  has  hallowed,  and  the  latter  gain 
ing  ground  inch  by  inch  and  foot  by  foot.  Things  old 
and  venerable  are  every  day  being  supplanted  by  strange 
inventions.  "  Revolution"  is  not  merely  the  impres 
sive  catch-word  of  the  Frondeur  or  the  rebel,  and  de 
signed  to  arouse  the  oppressed  to  resistance ;  its  influ 
ence  is  everywhere  visible,  and  is  everywhere  felt. 
Innovation  is  not  now  confined  to  powder,  wigs,  curls, 
hoops,  and  the  thousand  and  ten  thousand  appendages 
which  have  been  invented  by  fashion,  sometimes  to 
make  up  for  the  deficiencies  of  the  outer  man  and  the 
outer  woman,  but  oftener  to  mar  and  spoil  the  fair  pro 
portions  of  the  Almighty's  handiwork  : — it  is  a  govern 
ing,  and  a  controlling  power,  in  the  court  and  in  the 
cabinet ;  it  rules  in  the  humble  cottage  of  the  laborer 
and  in  the  splendid  mansion  of  the  millionaire ;  it  pre 
sides  in  the  ball-room  and  at  the  fete,  in  the  council- 
chamber  and  at  the  political  convention  ;  it  is  with  the 
farmer  at  his  plough,  the  artisan  in  his  workshop,  the 
beauty  at  her  toilet,  the  scholar  in  his  study,  the  judg* 
on  the  bench,  and  the  statesman  in  his  closet. 


102  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALIIOUN.  [1815-16. 

"  Times  change  and  men  change  with  them" — is,  if 
anything,  truer  at  this  day  than  it  was  nineteen  hun 
dred  years  ago.  It  is  very  common  to  decry  politi 
cians  who  act  from  motives  of  expediency, — entirely 
regardless  of  the  fact  that  there  are  two  classes  of  such 
motives,  the  one  base  and  selfish,  and  the  other  honor 
able  and  praiseworthy.  He  cannot  be  a  just,  or  an 
enlightened  statesman,  who  adheres  to  ancient  forms 
and  precedents,  indifferent  to  the  age  in  which  he  lives, 
and  to  the  circumstances  by  which  he  is  surrounded. 
A  great  principle,  indeed,  is  too  important  to  be  idly 
sacrificed,  yet  it  may  be  made  to  conform  to  the 
changes  daily  taking  place  in  the  condition  and  in  the 
relations  of  men,  without  sacrificing  any  portion  of  its 
spirit.  Hence,  it  is  not  to  be  regretted,  that  there  are 
no  absolute  rules  in  politics ;  and  the  statesman  who 
feels  compelled  by  the  force  of  causes  which  he  cannot 
control,  to  alter  the  system  of  policy  which  he  has  ad 
vocated,  or  to  substitute  one  measure  for  another 
which  he  has  favored,  though  still  watching  closely  the 
principles,  which,  as  beacon  lights,  have  guided  his 
course,  deserves  far  more  of  honor  than  of  censure^ 

Few  among  modern  statesmen,  have  maintained  a 
higher  character  for  consistency  than  Mr.  Calhoun. 
As  has  been  remarked,  he  set  aside  the  question  of  the 
constitutionality  of  a  national  bank,  when  the  subject 
was  first  presented  to  him,  and  advocated  the  establish 
ment  of  such  an  institution,  in  order  to  put  an  end  to 
the  suspension  of  specie  payments,  and  to  restore  to 
the  people  the  national  currency — that  of  gold  and  sil 
ver — alone  recognized  by  the  constitution,  of  which 
they  had  been  for  years  deprived.  He  never  lost  sighi 


1815-16.]  RESOLUTION    OF    1816.  103 

of  this  great  principle  in  regard  to  the  constitutional 
currency,  and  in  furtherance  of  it,  earnestly  supported, 
and  voted  for,  the  resolution  of  1816,  which  provided 
that  specie,  or  the  notes  of  banks  paying  specie,  should 
alone  be  received  in  payment  of  government  dues. 
This  was  the  first  step  taken  toward  the  entire  separa 
tion  of  the  general  government  from  the  banking  sys 
tem, — a  measure  which  he  lived  to  see  accomplished, 
and,  in  no  small  degree,  through  his  own  disinterested 
and  untiring  efforts.  The  immediate  effect  produced 
by  the  incorporation  of  the  bank  in  1816,  and  the 
adoption  of  the  specie  resolution,  was  salutary ;  and 
through  their  agency,  the  currency  of  the  country  was 
soon  brought  back,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  desired,  to  the 
specie  standard. 

Two  other  most  important  questions,  intimately  con 
nected  with  each  other,  and  with  the  finances  of  the 
country,  were  agitated  at  the  session  of  1815-16.  At 
an  early  day  in  the  session,  Mr.  Lowndes,  as  the  chair 
man  of  the  committee  of  ways  and  means,  reported  a 
series  of  resolutions,  providing  for  the  continuance,  for 
a  limited  period,  of  the  direct  tax  which  had  been  im 
posed  on  account  of  the  exigencies  of  the  war,  and 
contemplating  the  establishment  of  a  new  tariff  of 
duties.  The  direct  tax  was  ordered  to  be  continued 
by  a  vote  of  the  House,  Mr.  Calhoun  voting  with  the 
majority.  In  regard  to  a  new  tariff  there  was,  per 
haps,  more  diversity  of  opinion  as  to  minor  details,  but 
not  so  much  as  to  the  general  principle.  In  March, 
1816,  the  tariff  act  of  that  year  was  reported  from  the 
committee  of  ways  and  means,  and  received  the  sup 
port  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  Probably  no  one  act  of  his  life 


]04  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-1G. 

has  been  more  severely  criticised  and  censured  than 
his  connection  with  the  tariff  of  1816.  Before  pro 
ceeding  to  notice  particularly  his  course  in  relation  to 
that  measure,  it  may  be  well  to  consider  the  motives 
which  governed  him,  and  the  reasons  which  influenced 
his  action,  as  expressed  by  himself. 

Premising,  that  during  the  debate  on  the  direct  tax, 
and  the  tariff  act  proper,  the  whole  question  in  regard 
to  the  permanent  defence  of  the  country,  the  develop 
ment  and  improvement  of  its  resources,  and  the  pro 
tection  of  all  its  great  interests,  including  that  of 
manufactures  then  in  its  infancy,  was  considered, — let 
us  see  how  he  has  put  himself  upon  the  record.  In 
the  course  of  the  debate  on  the  direct  tax,  he  made  the 
following  speech,  which  was  delivered  on  the  4th  of 
April,  1816. 

SPEECH    ON    THE    DIRECT    TAX, 

Mr.  Calhoun  commenced  his  remarks  by  observing,  that  there  -were 
in  the  affairs  of  nations,  not  less  than  that  of  individuals,  moments,  on 
the  proper  use  of  which  depended  their  fame,  prosperity  and  duration. 
Such  he  conceived  to  be  the  present  situation  of  this  nation.  Recently 
emerged  from  a  war,  we  find  ourselves  in  possession  of  a  physical  and 
moral  power  of  great  magnitude ;  and,  impressed  by  -tbe  misfortunes 
which  have  resulted  from  want  of  forecast  heretofore,  we  are  disposed 
to  apply  our  means  to  the  purposes  most  valuable  to  the  country.  Ho 
hoped,  that  in  this  interesting  situation,  we  should  be  guided  by  the 
dictates  of  truth  and  wisdom  only,  that  we  should  prefer  the  lasting 
happiness  of  our  country  to  its  present  ease,  its  security  to  its  pleasure, 
fair  honor  and  reputation,  to  inglorious  and  inactive  repose. 

We  are  now  called  on  to  determine  what  amount  of  revenue  is  neces 
sary  for  this  country  in  time  of  peace ;  this  involves  the  additional 
question,  what  are  the  means  which  the  true  interests  of  this  country 
demand?  The  principal  expense  of  our  government  grows  out  of 


1815-16.]  SPEECH    ON    THE    DIRECT    TAX.  105 

measures  necessary  for  its  defence ;  and  in  order  to  decide  what  those 
measures  ought  to  be,  it  will  be  proper  to  inquire  what  ought  to  be 
our  policy  towards  other  nations  ?  and  what  will  probably  be  theirs 
towards  us  ?  He  intentionally  laid  out  of  consideration  the  financial 
questions,  which  some  gentlemen  had  examined  in  the  debate  ;  and  also 
the  question  of  retrenchments,  on  which  he  would  only  remark,  that 
he  hoped,  whatsoever  of  economy  entered  into  the  measures  of  Con 
gress,  they  would  be  divested  of  the  character  of  parsimony. 

Beginning  with  the  policy  of  this  country,  it  ought,  he  said,  to  cor 
respond  with  the  character  of  its  political  institutions.  What  then  is 
their  character  ?  They  rest  on  justice  and  reason.  Those  being  the 
foundations  of  onr  government,  its  policy  ought  to  comport  with  them. 
It  is  the  duty  of  all  nations,  especially  of  one  whose  institutions  recog 
nize  no  principle  of  force,  but  appeal  to  virtue  for  their  strength,  to  act 
with  justice  and  moderation ;  with  moderation,  approaching  to  forbear 
ance.  In  all  possible  conflicts  with  foreign  powers,  our  government 
should  be  able  to  make  it  manifest  to  the  world,  that  it  has  justice  on 
its  side.  We  should  always  forbear  if  possible,  until  all  should  be  sat 
isfied,  that  when  we  take  up  arms,  it  is  not  for  the  purpose  of  conquest, 
but  maintaining  our  essential  rights.  Our  government,  however,  is  also 
founded  on  equality ;  it  permits  no  man  to  exercise  violence  ;  it  permits 
none  to  trample  on  the  rights  of  his  fellow  citizen  with  impunity. 
These  maxims  we  should  also  carry  into  our  intercourse  with  foreign 
nations,  and  as  we  render  justice  to  all,  so  we  should  be  prepared  to 
exact  it  from  all.  Our  policy  should  not  only  be  moderate  and  just,  but 
as  high-minded  as  it  is  moderate  and  just.  This,  said  Mr.  C.,  appears 
to  me  the  true  line  of  conduct.  In  the  policy  of  nations,  said  he,  there 
are  two  extremes :  one  extreme  in  which  justice  and  moderation  may 
sink  into  feebleness — another  in  which  that  lofty  spirit,  which  ought  to 
animate  all  nations,  particularly  free  ones,  may  mount  up  to  military 
violence.  These  extremes  ought  to  be  equally  avoided ;  but  of  the 
two,  he  considered  the  first  far  the  most  dangerous,  far  the  most  fatal. 
There  were,  he  said,  two  splendid  examples  of  nations  which  had  ulti 
mately  sunk  by  military  violence — the  Romans  in  ancient  time,  the 
French  in  modern.  But  how  numerous  were  the  instances  of  nations 
gradually  sinking  into  nothingness  through  imbecility  and  apathy. 
They  have  not  indeed  struck  the  mind  as  forcibly  as  the  instance  just 
mentioned ;  because  they  have  sunk  ingloriously,  without  anything  in 
their  descent  to  excite  either  admiration  or  respect  I  consider  the  ex- 
fi* 


106  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

treme  of  -weakness  not  only  the  most  dangerous  of  itself,  said  Mr.  C., 
but  as  that  extreme  to  which  the  people  of  this  country  are  peculiarly 
liable.  The  people  are,  indeed,  high-minded ;  and,  therefore,  it  may 
be  thought  my  fears  are  unfounded.  But  they  are  blessed  with  much 
happiness  ;  moral,  political  and  physical :  these  operate  on  the  dispo 
sitions  and  habits  of  this  people,  with  something  like  the  effects  attrib 
uted  to  southern  climates — they  dispose  them  to  pleasure  and  to  inac 
tivity,  except  in  the  pursuit  of  wealth.  I  need  not  appeal  to  the  past 
history  of  the  country  ;  to  the  indisposition  of  this  people  to  war  from 
the  commencement  of  the  government — arising  from  the  nature  of  our 
habits,  and  the  disposition  to  pursue  those  courses  which  contribute  to 
swell  our  private  fortunes.  We  incline,  not  only  from  the  causes 
already  mentioned,  but  from  the  nature  of  our  foreign  relations,  to  that 
feeble  policy,  which  I  consider  as  more  dangerous  than  the  other  ex 
treme.  We  have,  it  is  true,  dangers  to  apprehend  from  abroad — but 
they  are  far  off,  at  the  distance  of  three  thousand  miles  :  which  pre 
vents  that  continued  dread  which  they  would  excite  if  in  our  neighbor 
hood.  Besides,  we  can  have  no  foreign  war  which  we  should  dread,  or 
ought  to  fear  to  meet,  but  a  war  with  England  ;  but  a  war  with  her 
breaks  in  on  the  whole  industry  of  the  country,  and  affects  all  its  pri 
vate  pursuits.  On  this  account  we  prefer  suffering  very  great  wrongs 
from  her,  rather  than  to  redress  them  by  arms.  The  gentleman  from 
Pennsylvania  asked  if  the  country  did  forbear  till  it  felt  disgraced, 
whose  fault  was  it  ?  Not,  he  said,  that  of  the  administrations  of  Wash 
ington  or  Adams ;  for  neither  of  them  had  left  it  so.  A  few  words, 
said  Mr.  C.,  on  this  point.  The  fault  was  principally  in  neither  of  our 
several  administrations  ;  in  neither  of  the  two  great  parties.  It  arose 
from  the  indisposition  of  the  people  to  resort  to  arms,  from  the  reason 
already  assigned.  It  arose  also  from  two  incidental  circumstances — the 
want  of  preparation,  and  the  untried  character  of  our  government  in 
war.  But  there  were  other  circumstances  connected  with  the  party  to 
which  the  gentleman  belongs,  which  caused  the  country  to  forbear  too 
Jong.  That  party  took  advantage  of  the  indisposition  of  the  people  to 
an  English  war,  and  preached  up  the  advantages  of  peace  when  it  had 
become  ignominious ;  and  until  we  had  scarcely  the  ability  to  defend 
ourselves.  The  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  further  said,  if  peace 
had  not  been  made  when  it  was,  we  should  not  have  been  here  delib 
erating  at  this  time.  This  assertion  is  an  awful  one,  if  true.  If  the 
nation  was  on  the  verge  of  ruin,  the  defects  which  brought  it  to  that 


1815-16.]          SPEECH    ON    THE    DIRECT    TAX.  107 

situation  ought  to  be  known,  probed  and  corrected,  even  if  they  rose 
out  of  the  constitution.  But,  Mr.  C.  said,  it  is  an  assertion  that  ought 
not  to  be  lightly  made.  The  effects  are  dangerous ;  for  what  man 
hereafter,  with  such  consequences  before  his  eyes,  would  venture  to 
propose  a  war  ?  If  such  were  the  admitted  fact,  a  future  enemy  would 
persist  in  war,  expecting  the  country  to  sink  before  his  efforts :  his  arms 
would  be  steeled,  his  exertions  nerved  against  us.  The  position  was  in 
every  view,  one  of  that  dangerous  bearing  on  the  future  relations  of  the 
country,  that  it  ought  not  to  be  admitted  without  the  strongest  proof. 
"What,  said  Mr.  C.,  was  the  fact  ?  What  had  been  the  progress  of  events 
for  a  few  months  preceding  the  termination  of  the  war  ?  At  Balti 
more,  at  Plattsburg,  at  New  Orleans,  the  invaders  had  been  signally 
defeated  ;  a  new  spirit  was  diffused  through  the  whole  mass  of  the 
community.  Can  it  be  believed  then,  that  the  government  was  on  the 
verge  of  dissolution  ?  No,  sir  ;  it  never  stood  firmer  on  its  basis  than 
at  that  moment.  It  was  true,  indeed,  we  labored  under  great  difficul 
ties  ;  but  it  is  an  observation  made  by  a  statesman  of  great  sagacity, 
Edmund  Burke,  when  Pitt  was  anticipating  the  downfall  of  France 
through  her  finances,  that  an  instance  is  not  to  be  found  of  a  high- 
minded  nation  sinking  under  financial  difficulties — and  it  would  have 
been  exemplified  in  our  country  had  the  war  continued.  Men  on  all  sides 
began  to  unite  in  defence  of  the  country ;  parties  in  this  house  began 
to  rally  on  this  point,  and  if  the  gentleman  from  Pennsylvania  had 
been  a  member  at  that  time,  he  also,  from  what  he  has  said,  would 
have  taken  that  ground.  The  gentleman  had  taken  a  position  on  this 
point  as  erroneous  as  it  was  dangerous ;  and,  Mr.  C.  said,  he  had  thought 
proper  thus  to  notice  it. 

As  a  proof,  said  Mr.  C.,  that  the  situation  of  the  country  naturally 
inclines  us  to  too  much  feebleness  rather  than  too  much  violence,  I  re 
fer  to  the  fact,  that  there  are  on  this  floor,  men  who  are  entirely  op 
posed  to  armies,  to  navies,  to  every  means  of  defence.  Sir,  if  their 
politics  prevail,  the  country  will  be  disarmed,  at  the  mercy  of  any  for 
eign  power.  On  the  other  side,  sir,  there  is  no  excess  of  military  fer 
vor,  no  party  inclining  to  military  despotism :  for,  though  a  charge  of 
such  a  disposition  has  been  made  by  a  gentleman  in  debate"  it  is  with 
out  the  shadow  of  foundation.  What  is  the  fact  in  regard  to  the  army  ? 
Does  it  bear  out  his  assertion  ?  Is  it  even  preportionally  larger  now 
than  it  was  in  1801-2,  the  period  which  the  gentleman  considers  as  the 
standard  of  political  perfection  ?  It  was  then  about  4000  men ;  it  was 


108  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.      [1815-16. 

larger  in  proportion  than  an  army  of  10,000  men  would  now  be.  The 
charge  of  a  disposition  to  make  this  a  military  government,  exists  only 
in  the  imaginations  of  gentlemen ;  it  cannot  be  supported  by  facts  ;  it 
is  contrary  to  proof  and  to  evidence. 

Having  dismissed  this  part  of  the  subject,  Mr.  C.  proceeded  to  con 
sider  another  part  of  it,  in  his  opinion  equally  important,  viz. :  What 
will  be  the  probable  policy  of  other  nations  ?  With  the  world  at  large, 
said  he,  we  are  now  at  peace.  I  know  of  no  nation  with  which  we 
shall  probably  come  into  collision,  unless  it  be  with  Great  Britain  and 
Spain.  With  both  of  these  nations  we  have  considerable  points  of 
collision :  I  hope  this  country  will  maintain,  in  regard  to  both  of  them, 
the  strictest  justice  :  but  with  both  these  nations  there  is  a  possibility, 
sooner  or  later,  of  our  being  engaged  in  war.  As  to  Spain,  I  will  say 
nothing,  because  she  is  the  inferior  of  the  two,  and  those  measures 
which  apply  to  the  superior  power,  will  include  also  the  inferior.  I 
shall  consider  our  relations  then  with  England  only. 

Peace  now  exists  between  the  two  countries.  As  to  its  duration,  I 
will  give  no  opinion,  except  that  I  believe  the  peace  will  last  the  longer 
for  the  war  which  has  just  ended.  Evidences  have  been  furnished  dur 
ing  the  war  of  the  capacity  and  character  of  this  nation,  which  will 
make  her  indisposed  to  try  her  strength  with  us  on  slight  grounds. 
But,  what  is  the  probable  course  of  events  respecting  the  future  rela 
tions  between  the  two  countries  ?  England  is  the  most  formidable 
power  in  the  world :  she  has  the  most  numerous  army  and  navy  at 
her  command  We,  on  the  contrary,  are  the  most  growing  nation  on 
earth ;  most  rapidly  improving  in  those  very  particulars,  in  which  she 
excels.  This  question  then  presents  itself:  will  the  greater  power  per 
mit  the  less  to  attain  its  destined  greatness  by  natural  growth,  or  will 
she  take  measures  to  disturb  it  ?  Those  who  know  the  history  of  na 
tions,  will  not  believe  that  a  rival  will  look  unmoved  on  this  prosperity. 
It  has  been  said,  that  nations  have  heads,  but  no  hearts.  Every  states 
man,  every  one  who  loves  his  country,  who  wishes  to  maintain  the  dig 
nity  of  that  country,  to  see  it  attain  the  summit  of  greatness  and  pros 
perity,  regards  the  progress  of  other  nations  with  a  jealous  eye.  The 
English  statesmen  have  always  so  acted.  I  find  no  fault  with  them  on 
that  account,  but  rather  to  point  it  out  as  a  principle  which  ought  also 
to  govern  our  conduct  in  regard  to  them.  Will  Great  Britain  permit 
us  to  go  on  in  an  uninterrupted  march  to  the  height  of  national  great 
ness  and  prosperity  ?  I  fear  not.  But,  admitting  the  councils  on  that 


1815-16.]         SPEECH    ON    THE    DIRECT    TAX.  109 

side  of  the  water  to  be  governed  by  a  degree  of  magnanimity  and  jus 
tice,  the  world  has  never  experienced  from  them,  and  I  am  warranted 
in  saying  never  will,  may  not  some  unforeseen  collision  involve  you  in 
hostilities  with  Great  Britain  ?  Gentlemen  on  the  other  side  have  said, 
that  there  are  points  of  difference  with  that  nation  (existing  prior  to 
the  war)  which  are  yet  unsettled.  I  grant  it.  If  such,  then,  be  the 
fact,  does  it  not  show  that  points  of  collision  remain — that  whenever 
the  same  condition  of  the  world  that  existed  before  the  war  shall  recur, 
the  same  collisions  will  probably  take  place  ?  If  Great  Britain  sees 
the  opportunity  of  enforcing  the  same  doctrines  we  have  already  con 
tested,  will  she  not  seize  it  ?  Admitting  this  country  to  maintain  that 
policy  which  it  ought ;  that  its  councils  be  governed  by  the  most  per 
fect  justice  and  moderation,  we  yet  see,  said  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  by  a 
difference  of  views  on  essential  points,  the  peace  between  the  two  na 
tions  is  liable  to  be  jeopardized.  I  am  sure,  that  future  wars  with 
England  are  not  only  possible  ;  but,  I  will  say  more,  that  they  are 
highly  probable — nay,  that  they  will  certainly  take  place.  Future 
wars,  I  fear,  with  the  honorable  Speaker,  future  wars,  long  and  bloody, 
will  exist  between  this  country  and  Great  Britain :  I  lament  it — but  I 
wij.1  not  close  my  eyes  on  future  events ;  I  will  not  betray  the  high 
trust  reposed  in  me ;  I  will  speak  what  I  believe  to  be  true.  You  will 
have  to  encounter  British  jealousy  and  hostility  in  every  shape,  not  im 
mediately  manifested  by  open  force  or  violence,  perhaps,  but  by  indi 
rect  attempts  to  check  your  growth  and  prosperity.  As  far  as  they 
can,  they  will  disgrace  everything  connected  with  you :  her  reviewers, 
paragraphists  and  travellers  will  assail  you  and  your  institutions,  and 
no  means  will  be  left  untried  to  bring  you  to  contemn  yourselves,  and 
be  contemned  by  others.  I  thank  my  God,  they  have  not  now  the 
means  of  effecting  it  which  they  once  had.  No ;  the  late  war  has 
given  you  a  mode  of  feeling  and  thinking  which  forbids  the  acknowl 
edgment  of  national  inferiority,  that  first  of  political  evils.  Had  we  not 
encountered  Great  Britain,  we  should  not  have  had  the  brilliant  points 
to  rest  on  which  we  now  have.  We,  too,  have  now  our  heroes  and 
illustrious  actions.  If  Britain  has  her  Wellington,  we  have  our  Jack- 
sons,  Browns  and  Scotts.  If  she  has  her  naval  heroes,  we  have  them 
not  less  renowned,  for  they  have  snatched  the  laurel  from  her  brows 
It  is  impossible  that  we  can  now  be  degraded  by  comparisons ;  I  trust 
we  are  equally  above  corruption  and  intrigue :  it  only  remains  then  to 
try  the  contest  by  force  of  arms. 


110  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

Let  us  now,  said  Mr.  C.,  consider  the  measures  of  preparation  which 
sound  policy  dictates.  First,  then,  as  to  extent,  without  reference  to 
the  kind :  They  ought  to  be  graduated  by  a  reference  to  the  character 
and  capacity  of  both  countries.  England  excels  in  means  all  countries 
that  now  exist,  or  ever  did  exist ;  and  has  besides  great  moral  ro. 
sources — intelligent  and  renowned  for  masculine  virtues.  On  our  par<\, 
our  measures  ought  to  correspond  with  that  lofty  policy  which  become 
freemen  determined  to  defend  our  rights.  Thus  circumstanced  on  both 
sides,  we  ought  to  omit  no  preparation  fairly  in  our  means.  Next,  as 
to  the  species  of  preparation,  which  opens  subjects  of  great  extent  and 
importance.  The  navy  most  certainly,  in  any  point  of  view,  occupies 
the  first  place.  It  is  the  most  safe,  most  effectual,  and  the  cheapest 
mode  of  defence.  For,  let  the  fact  be  remembered,  our  navy  cost  less 
per  man,  including  all  the  amount  of  extraordinary  expenditures  on  the 
Lakes,  than  our  army.  This  is  an  important  fact,  which  ought  to  be 
fixed  in  the  memory  of  the  house ;  fur,  if  that  force  be  the  most  effi 
cient  and  safe,  which  is  at  the  same  time  the  cheapest,  on  that  should 
be  our  principal  reliance.  We  have  heard  much  of  the  danger  of 
standing  armies  to  our  liberties — the  objection  cannot  be  made  to  the 
navy.  Generals,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  have  often  advanced  at  the 
head  of  arms  to  Imperial  rank  and  power  ;  but  in  what  instance  had 
an  Admiral  usurped  on  the  liberties  of  his  country  ?  Put  our  strength 
in  the  navy  for  foreign  defence,  and  we  shall  certainly  escape  the  whole 
catalogue  of  possible  ills,  painted  by  gentlemen  on  the  other  side.  A 
naval  power  attacks  that  country,  from  whose  hostility  alone  we  have 
anything  to  dread,  where  she  is  most  assailable,  and  defends  this  coun 
try  where  it  is  weakest.  Where  is  Great  Britain  most  vulnerable  ? 
In  what  point  is  she  most  accessible  to  attack  {  In  her  commerce — in 
her  navigation.  There  she  is  not  only  exposed,  but  the  blow  is  fatal. 
There  is  her  strength  ;  there  is  the  secret  of  her  power.  Here,  then, 
if  ever  it  become  necessary,  you  ought  to  strike.  But  where  are  you 
most  exposed  ?  On  the  Atlantic  line  ;  a  line  so  long  and  so  weak,  that 
you  are  peculiarly  liable  to  be  assailed  in  it.  How  is  it  to  be  de 
fended  ?  By  a  navy,  and  by  a  navy  alone  can  it  be  efficiently  defended. 
Let  us  look  back  to  the  time  when  the  enemy  was  in  possession  of  the 
whole  line  of  the  sea  coast,  moored  in  your  rivers,  and  ready  to  assault 
you  at  every  point.  The  facts  are  too  recent  to  require  to  be  painted — I 
will  only  generally  state  that  your  commerce  was  cut  up  ;  your  specie 
circulation  destroyed  ;  your  internal  communication  interrupted,  your 


1815-16.]         SPEECH    ON    THE    DIRECT    TAX.  Ill 

best  and  cheapest  highway  being  entirely  in  possession  of  the  enemy  ; 
your  ports  foreign,  the  one  to  the  other ;  your  treasury  exhausted,  in 
merely  defensive  preparations  and  militia  requisitions,  not  knowing 
where,  you  would  be  assailed,  you  had  at  the  same  moment,  to  stand 
prepared  at  every  point.  A  recurrence  of  this  state  of  things,  so  op 
pressive  to  the  country,  in  the  event  of  another  war,  could  be  pre 
vented  only  by  the  establishment  and  maintenance  of  a  sufficient  naval 
force.  Mr.  C.  said  he  had  thought  proper  to  press  this  point  thus 
strongly,  because,  though  it  was  generally  assented  to  that  the  navy 
ought  to  be  increased,  he  found  that  assent  too  cold,  and  the  approba 
tion  bestowed  on  it  too  negative  in  its  character.  It  ought,  it.  is  said, 
to  be  gradually  increased.  If  the  navy  is  to  be  increased  at  all,  let  its 
augmentation  be  limited  only  by  your  ability  to  build,  officer,  and  man. 
If  it  is  the  kind  of  force  most  safe,  and  at  the  same  time  most  efficient 
to  guard  against  foreign  invasion,  or  repel  foreign  aggression,  you  ought 
to  put  your  whole  force  on  the  sea  side.  It  is  estimated  that  we  have 
in  our  country  eighty  thousand  sailors.  This  would  enable  us  to  man 
a  considerable  fleet,  which,  if  well  directed,  would  give  us  the  habitual 
command  on  our  own  coast ;  an  object,  in  every  point  of  view,  so  de 
sirable.  Not  that  we  ought,  hastily,  without  due  preparation,  under 
present  circumstances,  to  build  a  large  number  of  vessels  ;  but  we  ought 
to  commence  preparation,  establish  docks,  collect  timber  and  naval 
stores,  and,  as  soon  as  the  materials  are  prepared,  we  ought  to  com 
mence  building,  to  the  extent  which  I  have  mentioned.  If  anything 
can  preserve  the  country  in  its  most  imminent  dangers  from  abroad,  it 
is  this  species  of  armament.  If  we  desire  to  be  free  from  future  wars, 
as  I  hope  we  may,  this  is  the  only  way  to  effect  it.  We  shall  have 
peace  then,  and  what  is  of  still  higher  moment,  with  perfect  security. 
In  regard  to  our  present  military  establishment,  Mr.  C.  said,  it  was 
small  enough.  That  point  the  honorable  Speaker  had  fully  demon 
strated  :  it  was  not  sufficiently  large  at  present  to  occupy  all  our  for 
tresses.  Gentlemen  had  spoken  in  favor  of  the  militia,  and  against  the 
army.  In  regard  to  the  militia,  said  Mr.  C.,  I  would  go  as  far  as  any 
gentleman,  and  considerably  farther  than  those  would  who  are  so  vio 
lently  opposed  to  our  small  army.  I  would  not  only  arm  the  militia, 
but  I  would  extend  their  term  of  service,  and  make  them  efficient.  To 
talk  about  the  efficiency  of  militia  called  into  active  service  for  six 
months  only,  is  to  impose  on  the  people ;  it  is  to  ruin  them  with  false 
hopes.  I  know  the  danger  of  large  standing  armies,  said  Mr.  C.  I 


112  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16 

knpw  the  militia  are  the  true  force ;  that  no  nation  can  be  safe  at  home 
and  abroad,  which  has  not  an  efficient  militia ;  but  the  time  of  service 
ought  to  be  enlarged,  to  enable  them  to  acquire  a  knowledge  of  the 
duties  of  the  camp,  to  let  the  habits  of  civil  life  be  broken.  For  though 
militia,  freshly  drawn  from  their  homes,  may,  in  a  moment  of  enthusi 
asm,  do  great  service,  as  at  New  Orleans,  in  general  they  are  not  calcu 
lated  for  service  in  the  field,  until  time  is  allowed  for  them  to  acquire 
habits  of  discipline  and  subordination.  Your  defence  ought  to  depend 
on  the  land,  on  a  regular  draft  from  the  body  of  the  people.  It  is  thus 
in  time  of  war  the  business  of  recruiting  will  be  dispensed  with ;  a  mode 
of  defending  the  country  every  way  uncongenial  with  our  republican 
institutions ;  uncertain,  slow  in  its  operation,  and  expensive,  it  draws 
from  society  its  worse  materials,  introducing  into  our  army,  of  necessity, 
all  the  severities  which  are  exercised  in  that  of  the  most  despotic  gov 
ernment.  Thus  compounded,  our  army  in  a  great  degree  lose  that  en 
thusiasm  with  which  citizen-soldiers,  conscious  of  liberty,  and  fighting  in 
defence  of  their  country,  have  ever  been  animated.  All  free  nations  of 
antiquity  entrusted  the  defence  of  their  country  not  to  the  dregs  of  so 
ciety,  but  to  the  body  of  citizens;  hence  that  heroism  which  modern 
times  may  admire  but  cannot  equal.  I  know  that  I  utter  truths  un 
pleasant  to  those  who  wish  to  enjoy  liberty  without  making  the  efforts 
necessary  to  secure  it.  Her  favor  is  never  won  by  the  cowardly,  the 
vicious,  or  indolent.  It  has  been  said  by  some  physicians  that  life  is  a 
forced  state ;  the  same  may  be  said  of  freedom.  It  requires  efforts ;  it 
pre-supposes  mental  and  moral  qualities  of  a  high  order  to  be  generally 
diffused  in  the  society  where  it  exists.  It  mainly  stands  on  the  faithful 
discharge  of 'two  great  duties  which  every  citizen  of  proper  age  owes 
the  republic ;  a  wise  and  virtuous  exercise  of  the  right  of  suffrage ;  and 
a  prompt  and  brave  defence  of  the  country  in  the,  hour  of  danger.  The 
first  symptom  of  decay  has  ever  appeared  in  the  backward  and  neg 
ligent  discharge  of  the  latter  duty.  Those  who  are  acquainted  with 
the  historians  and  orators  of  antiquity  know  the  truth  of  this  assertion. 
The  least  decay  of  patriotism,  the  least  verging  towards  pleasure  and 
luxury  will  there  immediately  discover  itself.  Large  standing  and 
mercenary  armies  then  become  necessary ;  and  those  who  are  not  will 
ing  to  render  the  military  service  essential  to  the  defence  of  their  rights, 
soon  find,  as  they  ought  to  do,  a  master.  It  is  the  order  of  nature  and 
cannot  be  reversed.  This  would  at  once  put  an  adequate  force  in  your 
hands,  and  render  you  secure.  I  cannot  agree  with  those  who  think 


1815-16.]         SPEECH    ON    THE    DIRECT    TAX.  113 

that  we  are  free  from  danger,  and  need  not  to  prepare  for  it,  because 
we  have  no  nation  in  our  immediate  neighborhood  to  dread.  Recollect 
that  the  nation  with  whom  we  have  recently  terminated  a  severe  con 
flict,  lives  on  the  bosom  of  the  deep ;  that  although  three  thousand  miles 
of  ocean  intervene  between  us,  she  can  attack  you  with  as  much  facility 
as  if  she  had  but  two  hundred  or  two  hundred  and  fifty  miles  over  land 
to  march.  She  is  as  near  you  as  if  she  occupied  Canada  instead  of  the 
islands  of  Great  Britain.  You  have  the  power  of  assailing  as  well  as 
being  assailed ;  her  provinces  border  on  our  territory,  the  dread  of  los 
ing  which,  if  you  are  prepared  to  attack  them,  will  contribute  to  that 
peace  which  every  honest  man  is  anxious  to  maintain  as  long  as  pos 
sible  with  that  country. 

Mr.  C.  then  proceeded  to  a  point  of  less  but  yet  of  great  importance — 
he  meant,  the  establishment  of  roads,  and  opening  canals  in  various  parts 
of  the  country.  Your  country,  said  he,  has  certain  points  of  feebleness 
and  certain  points  of  strength  about  it.  Your  feebleness  should  be  re 
moved,  your  strength  improved.  Your  population  is  widely  dispersed. 
Though  this  is  greatly  advantageous  in  one  respect,  that  of  preventing 
the  country  from  being  permanently  conquered,  it  imposes  a  great  dif 
ficulty  in  defending  your  territory  from  invasion,  because  of  the  difficulty 
of  transportation  from  one  point  to  another  of  your  widely-extended 
frontier.  We  ought  to  contribute  as  much  as  possible  to  the  formation 
of  good  military  roads,  not  only  on  the  score  of  general  political  econo 
my,  but  to  enable  us  on  emergencies  to  collect  the  whole  mass  of  our 
military  means  on  the  point  menaced.  The  people  are  brave,  great, 
and  spirited,  but  they  must  be  brought  together  in  sufficient  number, 
and  with  a  certain  promptitude  to  enable  them  to  act  with  effect  The 
importance  of  military  roads  was  well  knowa  to  the  Romans :  the  re 
mains  of  tlieir  roads  exist  to  this  day,  some  of  them  uninjured  by  the 
ravages  of  time.  Let  us  make  great  permanent  roads,  not  like  the  Ro 
mans,  with  a  view  of  subjecting  and  ruling  provinces,  but  for  the  more 
honorable  purpose  ef  defence ;  and  connecting  more  closely  the  interests 
of  various  sections  of  this  great  country.  Let  any  one  look  at  the  vast 
cost  of  transportation  during  the  war,  much  of  which  is  chargeable  to 
the  want  of  good  roads  and  canals,  and  he  will  not  deny  the  vast  im 
portance  of  a  due  attention  to  this  object. 

Mr.  C.  proceeded  to  another  topic — the  encouragement  proper  to  be 
afforded  to  the  industry  of  the  country.  In  regard  to  the  question,  how 
fax  manufactures  ought  to  be  fostered,  Mr.  C.  said  it  was  the  duty  of 


114  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

this  country,  as  a  means  of  defence,  to  encourage  the  domestic  industry 
of  the  country,  more  especially  that  part  of  it  which  provides  the  neces 
sary  materials  for  clothing  and  defence.  Let  us  look  at  the  nature  of 
the  war  most  likely  to  occur.  England  is  in  the  possession  of  the  ocean 
no  man,  however  sanguine,  can  believe  that  we  can  deprive  her  soon  of 
her  predominance  there.  That  control  deprives  us  of  the  means  of 
maintaining  our  army  and  navy  cheaply  clad.  The  question  relating  to 
manufactures  must  not  depend  on  the  abstract  principle,  that  industry 
left  to  pursue  its  own  course,  will  find  in  its  own  interest  all  the  en 
couragement  that  is  necessary.  I  lay  the  claims  of  the  manufacturers 
entirely  out  of  view,  said  Mr.  C. — but  on  general  principles,  without  re 
gard  to  their  interest,  a  certain  encouragement  should  be  extended  at 
least  to  our  woollen  and  cotton  manufactures. 

There  was  another  point  of  preparation  which,  Mr.  C.  said,  ought  not 
to  be  overlooked — the  defence  of  our  coast,  by  means  other  than  the 
navy,  on  which  we  ought  to  rely  mainly,  but  not  entirely.  The  coast 
is  our  weak  part,  which  ought  to  be  rendered  strong,  if  it  be  in  our 
power  to  make  it  so.  There  are  two  points  on  our  coast  particularly 
weak,  the  mouths  of  the  Mississippi  and  the  Chesapeake  Bay,  which 
ought  to  be  cautiously  attended  to,  not  however  neglecting  others. 
The  administration  which  leaves  these  two  points  in  another  war  without 
fortification,  ought  to  receive  the  execration  of  the  country.  Look  at 
the  facility  afforded  by  the  Chesapeake  Bay  to  maritime  powers  in  at 
tacking  us.  If  we  estimate  with  it  the  margin  of  rivers  navigable  for 
Tessels  of  war,  it  adds  fourteen  hundred  miles  at  least  to  the  line  of  our 
Bea-coast ;  and  that  of  the  worst  character,  for  when  an  enemy  is  there, 
it  is  without  the  fear  of  being  driven  from  it :  he  has,  besides,  the  power 
of  assaulting  two  shores  at  the  same  time,  and  must  be  expected  on 
both.  Under  such  circumstances,  no  degree  of  expense  would  be  too 
great  for  its  defence.  The  whole  margin  of  the  bay  is  besides  an  ex 
tremely  sickly  one,  and  fatal  to  the  militia  of  the  upper  country.  How 
it  is  to  be  defended,  military  and  naval  men  will  best,  judge,  but  I  be- 
iieve  that  steam  frigates  ought  at  least  to  constitute  a  part  of  tho 
means ;  the  expense  of  which,  however  great,  the  people  ought  and 
would  cheerfully  bear. 

There  were  other  points  to  which,  Mr.  C.  said,  he  might  call  the  at 
tention  of  the  committee,  but  for  the  fear  of  fatiguing  them.  He  would 
mention  only  his  views  in  regard  to  our  finance,  as  connected  with  pre 
paratory  measures.  A  war  with  Great  Britain,  said  he,  will  immedi« 


1815—16.]         SPEECH     ON    THE    DIRECT    TAX.  115 

ately  distress  your  finance,  as  far  as  your  revenue  depends  on  imports. 
It  is  impossible  during  war  to  prepare  a  system  of  internal  revenue  in 
time  to  meet  the  defect  thus  occasioned.  Will  Congress  then  leave  the 
nation  wholly  dependent  on  foreign  commerce  for  its  revenue  ?  This 
nation,  Mr.  C.  said,  was  rapidly  changing  the  character  of  its  industry. 
When  a  nation  is  agricultural,  depending  for  supply  on  foreign  markets, 
its  people  may  be  taxed  through  its  impost  almost  to  the  amount  of  it* 
capacity.  The  nation  was,  however,  rapidly  becoming  to  a  considerable 
extent  a  manufacturing  nation.  We  find  that  exterior  commerce  (not 
including  the  coasting  trade)  was  every  day  bearing  less  and  less  pro 
portion  to  the  entire  wealth  and  strength  of  the  nation.  The  financial 
resources  of  the  nation  will,  therefore,  daily  become  weaker  and  weaker, 
instead  of  growing  with  the  nation's  growth,  if  we  do  not  resort  to  other 
objects  than  our  foreign  commerce  for  taxation.  But,  gentlemen  say, 
the  moral  power  of  the  nation  ought  not  to  be  neglected,  and  that  moral 
power  is  inconsistent  with  oppressive  taxes  on  the  people.  It  certainly 
is  with  oppressive  taxes,  but  to  make  them  so  they  must  be  both  heavy 
and  unnecessary.  I  agree,  therefore,  with  gentlemen  in  their  premises, 
but  not  in  their  conclusion,  that  because  an  oppressive  tax  destroys  the 
whole  moral  power  of  the  country,  there  ought  therefore  to  be  no  tax 
at  all.  Such  a  conclusion  is  certainly  erroneous.  Let  us,  said  Mr.  C., 
examine  the  question,  whether  a  tax  laid  for  the  defence,  security, 
and  lasting  prosperity  of  a  country,  is  calculated  to  destroy  the  moral 
power  of  this  country.  If  such  be  the  fact,  as  indispensable  as  I  believe 
these  facts  to  be,  I  will  relinquish  them;  for  of  all  the  powers  of  the 
government,  the  power  of  a  moral  kind  is  most  to  be  cherished.  We 
had  better  give  up  all  our  physical  power  than  part  with  that.  But 
what  is  moral  power  ?  The  zeal  of  the  country,  and  the  confidence  in 
the  administration  of  its  government.  Will  it  be  diminished  by  laying 
taxes  wisely,  necessarily,  and  moderately  ?  If  you  suppose  the  people 
intelligent  and  virtuous,  it  cannot  be  admitted.  But  if  a  majority  of 
them  are  ignorant  and  vicious,  then  it  is  probable  a  tax  laid  for  the  most 
judicious  purpose  may  deprive  you  of  their  confidence.  The  people,  I 
believe,  are  intelligent  and  virtuous.  The  wiser  then  you  act ;  the  less 
you  yield  to  the  temptation  of  ignoble  and  false  security,  the  more 
you  attract  their  confidence.  The  very  existence  of  your  government 
proves  their  intelligence :  for,  let  me  say  to  this  house,  that  if  one  who 
knew  nothing  of  this  people  were  made  acquainted  with  its  government, 
and  with  the  fact  that  it  had  sustained  itself  for  thirty  years,  he  would 


116  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

know  at  once  that  this  wag  a  most  intelligent  and  virtuous  people. 
Convince  the  people  that  measures  are  necessary  and  wise,  and  they 
will  maintain  them.  Already  they  go  far,  very  far  before  this  house  in 
energy  and  public  spirit.  If  ever  measures  of  this  description  become 
unpopular,  it  will  be  by  speeches  here.  Are  any  willing  to  lull  the 
people  into  false  security  ?  Can  they  withdraw  their  eyes  from  facts 
menacing  the  prosperity,  if  not  the  existence,  of  the  nation  ?  Are  they 
willing  to  inspire  them  with  sentiments  injurious  to  their  lasting  peace 
and  prosperity  ? 

The  subject  is  grave ;  it  is  connected  with  the  happiness  and  existence 
of  the  country.  I  do  most  sincerely  hope  that  this  house  are  the  real 
agents  of  the  people :  they  are  brought  here  not  to  consult  their  ease 
and  convenience,  but  their  general  defence  and  common  welfare.  Such 
is  the  language  of  the  constitution. 

I  have  faithfully,  in  discharge  of  the  sacred  trust  reposed  in  me  by 
those  for  whom  I  act,  pointed  out  those  measures  which  our  situation 
and  relation  to  the  rest  of  the  world,  render  necessary  for  our  security 
and  lasting  prosperity.  They  involve  no  doubt  much  expense ;  they 
require  considerable  sacrifices  on  the  part  of  the  people ;  but  are  they 
on  that  account  to  be  rejected  ?  We  are  called  on  to  choose ;  on  the 
:me  side  is  great  ease  it  is  true,  but  on  the  other  the  security  of  the 
country.  We  may  dispense  with  the  taxes;  we  may  neglect  every 
measure  of  precaution,  and  feel  no  immediate  disaster ;  but  in  such  a 
state  of  things  what  virtuous,  what  wise  citizen,  but  what  must  look  on 
the  future  with  dread !  I  know  of  no  situation  so  responsible,  if  prop 
erly  considered,  as  ours.  We  are  charged  by  Providence  not  only 
with  the  happiness  of  this  great  and  rising  people,  but  in  a  considerable 
degree  with  that  of  the  human  race.  We  have  a  government  of  a  new 
order,  perfectly  distinct  from  all  which  has  ever  preceded  it.  A  gov- 
trnment  founded  on  the  rights  of  man,  resting  not  on  authority,  not  on 
prejudice,  not  on  superstition,  but  reason.  If  it  succeeded,  as  fondly 
noped  by  its  founders,  it  will  be  the  commencement  of  a  new  era  in 
human  affairs.  All  civilized  governments  must  in  the  course  of  time 
conform  to  its  principles.  Thus  circumstanced,  can  you  hesitate  what 
course  to  choose  ?  The  road  that  wisdom  points,  leads  it  is  true  up  the 
steep,  but  leads  also  to  security  and  lasting  glory.  No  nation,  thai 
wants  the  fortitude  to  tread  it,  ought  ever  to  aspire  to  greatness.  Such 
ought  and  will  certainly  sink  into  the  list  of  those  that  have  done  no 
thing  to  be  known  or  remembered.  It  is  immutable ;  it  is  in  the  nature 


1815-16.]  TARIFF    OF    1816.  117 

of  things.  The  love  of  present  ease  and  pleasure,  indifference  about 
the  future,  that  fatal  weakness  of  human  nature,  has  never  failed  in  in 
dividuals  or  nations  to  sink  to  disgrace  and  ruin.  On  the  contrary,  virtue 
and  wisdom,  which  regard  the  future,  which  spurn  the  temptations  of 
the  moment,  however  rugged  their  path,  end  in  happiness.  Such  are 
the  universal  sentiments  of  all  wise  writers,  from  the  didactics  of  the 
philosophers  to  the  fictions  of  the  poets.  They  agree  that  pleasure  is  a 
flowery  path,  leading  off  among  groves  and  meadows,  but  ending  in  a 
gloomy  and  dreary  wilderness ;  that  it  is  the  syren's  voice,  which  he 
who  listens  to  is  ruined  ;  that  it  is  the  cup  of  Circe,  which  he  who  drinks 
is  converted  into  a  swine.  This  is  the  language  of  fiction,  reason  teaches 
the  same.  It  Is  my  wish  to  elevate  the  national  sentiment  to  that 
which  every  just  and  virtuous  mind  possesses.  No  effort  is  needed  here 
to  impel  us  the  opposite  way  ;  that  also  may  be  but  too  safely  trusted 
to  the  frailties  of  our  nature.  This  nation  is  in  a  situation  similar  to 
that  which  one  of  the  most  beautiful  writers  of  antiquity  paints  Her 
cules  in  his  youth.  He  represents  the  hero  as  retiring  into  the  wilder 
ness  to  deliberate  on  the  course  of  life  which  he  ought  to  choose.  Two 
Goddesses  approach  him  ;  one  recommending  to  him  a  life  of  ease  and 
pleasure  ;  the  other  of  labor  and  virtue.  The  hero  adopted  the  counsel 
of  the  latter,  and  his  fame  ami  glory  are  known  to  the  world.  May 
this  nation,  the  youthful  Hercules,  possessing  his  form  and  muscles,  be 
inspired  with  similar  sentiments  and  follow  his  example  ! 


Similar  views  upon  the  questions  and  topics  consid 
ered,  were  presented  with  equal  ability  and  force,  in 
the  progress  of  the  discussion  on  the  tariff  act.  Pend 
ing  a  motion  made  by  Mr.  Randolph,  to  strike  out  the 
minimum  valuation  on  cotton  goods,  Mr.  Calhoun  said: 
"  The  debate  heretofore  on  this  subject,  has  been  on 
the  degree  of  protection  which  ought  to  be  afforded  to 
our  cotton  and  woollen  manufactures  ;  all  professing  to 
be  friendly  to  those  infant  establishments,  and  to  be 
willing  to  extend  to  them  adequate  encouragement. 
The  present  motion  assumes  a  new  aspect.  It  is  intro 
duced  professedly  on  the  ground,  that  manufactures 


118  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALIIOUN.  [1815-16. 

ought  not  to  receive  any  encouragement ;  and  will,  in 
its  operation,  leave  our  cotton  establishments  exposed 
to  the  competition  of  the  cotton  goods  of  the  East 
Indies,  which,  it  is  acknowledged  on  all  sides,  they  are 
not  capable  of  meeting  with  success,  without  the  pro 
viso  proposed  to  be  stricken  out  by  the  motion  now 
under  discussion.  Till  the  debate  assumed  this  new 
form,  he  had  determined  to  be  silent ;  participating,  as 
he  largely  did,  in  that  general  anxiety  which  is  felt, 
after  so  long  and  laborious  a  session,  to  return  to  the 
bosom  of  our  families.  But  on  a  subject  of  such  vital 
importance,  touching,  as  it  does,  the  security  and  per 
manent  prosperity  of  our  country,  he  hoped  that  the 
House  would  indulge  him  in  a  few  observations.  He 
regretted  much  his  want  of  preparation — he  meant  not 
a  verbal  preparation,  for  he  had  ever  despised  such,  but 
that  due  and  mature  meditation  and  arrangement  of 
thought,  which  the  House  is  entitled  to  on  the  part  of 
those  who  occupy  any  portion  of  their  time.  But 
whatever  his  arguments  might  want  on  that  account  in 
weight,  he  hoped  might  be  made  up  in  the  disinterested 
ness  of  his  situation.  He  was  no  manufacturer;  he 
was  not  from  that  portion  of  our  country  supposed  to 
be  peculiarly  interested.  Coming,  as  he  did,  from  the 
south,  having,  in  common  with  his  immediate  constitu 
ents,  no  interest,  but  in  the  cultivation  of  the  soil,  in 
selling  its  products  high,  and  buying  cheap  the  wants 
and  conveniences  of  life,  no  motives  could  be  attributed 
to  him,  but  such  as  were  disinterested. 

"  iic  hiiJ  ns.-icjri.oJ,  that  the  subject  before  them  was 
connected  with  the  security  of  the  country.  It  would, 
doubtless,  by  some  be  considered  a  rash  assertion  ;  but 


1815-16.]       REMARKS    ON    THE    TARIFF    ACT.  119 

he  conceived  it  to  be  susceptible  of  the  clearest  proof; 
and  he  hoped,  with  due  attention,  to  establish  it  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  House. 

"  The  security  of  a  country  mainly  depends  on  its 
spirit  and  its  means ;  and  the  latter  principally  on  its 
monied  resources.  Modified  as  the  industry  of  this 
country  now  is,  combined  with  our  peculiar  situation 
and  want  of  a  naval  ascendency  ;  whenever  we  have 
the  misfortune  to  be  involved  in  a  war  with  a  nation 
dominant  on  the  ocean,  and  it  is  almost  only  with  such 
we  can  at  present  be,  the  monied  resources  of  the 
country,  to  a  great  extent,  must  fail.  He  took  it  for 
granted,  that  it  was  the  duty  of  this  body  to  adopt 
those  measures  of  prudent  foresight,  which  the  event  of 
war  made  necessary.  We  cannot,  he  presumed,  be  in 
different  to  dangers  from  abroad,  unless,  indeed,  the 
House  is  prepared  to  indulge  in  the  phantom  of  eternal 
peace,  which  seemed  to  possess  the  dream  of  some  of 
its  members.  Could  such  a  state  exist,  no  foresight  or 
fortitude  would  be  necessary  to  conduct  the  affairs  of 
the  republic  ;  but  as  it  is  the  mere  illusion  of  the  im 
agination  ;  as  every  people  that  ever  has  or  ever  will 
exist,  are  subjected  to  the  vicissitudes  of  peace  and 
war,  it  must  ever  be  considered  as  the  plain  dictate  of 
wisdom,  in  peace  to  prepare  for  war.  What,  then,  let 
us  consider,  constitute  the  resources  of  this  country, 
and  what  are  the  effects  of  war  on  them  ?  Commerce 
and  agriculture,  till  lately,  almost  the  only,  still  consti 
tute  the  principal  sources  of  our  wealth.  So  long  as 
these  remain  uninterrupted,  the  country  prospers ;  but 
war,  as  we  are  now  circumstanced,  is  equally  destruc 
tive  to  both.  They  both  depend  on  foreign  markets  ; 


120  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

and  our  country  is  placed,  as  it  regards  them,  in  a 
situation  strictly  insular ;  a  wide  ocean  rolls  between. 
Our  commerce  neither  is  nor  can  be  protected,  by  the 
present  means  of  the  country.  What,  then,  are  the 
effects  of  a  war  with  a  maritime  power — with  Eng 
land  ?  Our  commerce  annihilated,  spreading  individ 
ual  misery,  and  producing  national  poverty  ;  our  agri 
culture  cut  off  from  its  accustomed  markets,  the  surplus 
Droduct  of  the  farmer  perishes  on  his  hands ;  and  he 
ceases  to  produce,  because  he  cannot  sell.  His  re 
sources  are  dried  up,  while  his  expenses  are  greatly 
increased ;  as  all  manufactured  articles,  the  necessaries, 
as  well  as  the  conveniences  of  life,  rise  to  an  extrava 
gant  price.  The  recent  war  fell  with  peculiar  pressure 
on  the  growers  of  cotton  and  tobacco,  and  other  great 
staples  of  the  country ;  and  the  same  state  of  things 
will  recur  in  the  event  of  another,  unless  prevented  by 
the  foresight  of  this  body.  If  the  mere  statement  of 
facts  did  not  carry  conviction  to  any  mind,  as  he  con 
ceives  it  is  calculated  to  do,  additional  arguments  might 
be  drawn  from  the  general  nature  of  wealth.  Neither 
agriculture,  manufactures  or  commerce,  taken  separ 
ately,  is  the  cause  of  wealth ;  it  flows  from  the  three 
combined;  and  cannot  exist  without  each.  The 
wealth  of  any  single  nation  or  an  individual,  it  is  true, 
may  not  immediately  depend  on  the  three,  but  such 
wealth  always  presupposes  their  existence.  He  viewed 
the  words  in  the  most  enlarged  sense.  Without  com 
merce,  industry  would  have  no  stimulus ;  without 
manufactures,  it  would  be  without  the  means  of  pro 
duction  ;  and  without  agriculture  neither  of  the  others 
can  subsist.  When  separated  entirely  and  perma- 


1815-16.]       REMARKS    ON    THE    TARIFF    ACT.  121 

nently,  they  perish.  War  in  this  country  produces,  to 
a  great  extent,  that  effect ;  and  hence,  the  great  em 
barrassment  which  follows  in  its  train.  The  failure 
of  the  wealth  and  resources  of  the  nation  necessarily 
involved  the  ruin  of  its  finances  and  its  currency.  It 
is  admitted  by  the  most  strenuous  advocates,  on  the 
other  side,  that  no  country  ought  to  be  dependent  on 
another  for  its  means  of  defence ;  that,  at  least,  our 
musket  and  bayonet,  our  cannon  and  ball,  ought  to  be 
of  domestic  manufacture.  But  what,  he  asked,  is  more 
necessary  to  the  defence  of  a  country  than  its  currency 
and  finance  ? 

"  Circumstanced  as  our  country  is,  can  these  stand 
the  shock  of  war  ?  Behold  the  effect  of  the  late  war 
on  them.  When  our  manufactures  are  grown  to  a 
certain  perfection,  as  they  soon  will  under  the  fostering 
care  of  government,  we  will  no  longer  experience  these 
evils.  The  farmer  will  find  a  ready  market  for  its  sur 
plus  produce  ;  and  what  is  almost  of  equal  conse 
quence,  a  certain  and  cheap  supply  of  all  his  wants. 
His  prosperity  will  diffuse  itself  to  every  class  in  the 
community  ;  and  instead  of  that  languor  of  industry 
and  individual  distress  now  incident  to  a  state  of  war, 
and  suspended  commerce,  the  wealth  and  vigor  of  the 
community  will  not  be  materially  impaired.  The  arm 
of  government  will  be  nerved,  and  taxes  in  the  hour 
of  danger,  when  essential  to  the  independence  of  the 
nation,  may  be  greatly  increased  ;  loans,  so  uncertain 
and  hazardous,  may  be  less  relied  on ;  thus  situated, 
the  storm  may  beat  without,  but  within  all  will  be  quiet 
and  safe.  To  give  perfection  to  this  state  of  things,  it 
will  be  necessary  to  add,  as  soon  as  possible,  a  system 

6 


122  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

of  internal  improvements,  and  at  least  such  an  exten 
sion  of  our  navy,  as  will  prevent  the  cutting  off  our 
coasting  trade.     The  advantage  of  each  is  so  striking, 
as  not  to  require  illustration,  especially  after  the  ex 
perience  of  the  recent  war.     It  is  thus  the  resources 
of  this  government  and  people  would  be  placed  beyond 
the  power  of  a  foreign  war  materially  to  impair.     But 
it  may  be  said  that  the  derangement  then  experienced, 
resulted  not  from   the   cause  assigned,  but  from   the 
errors  and  weakness  of  the  government.    He  admitted, 
that  many  financial  blunders  were  committed,  for  the 
subject  was  new  to  us  ;  that  the   taxes  were   not  laid 
sufficiently  early,  or  to  as  great  an  extent  as  they  ought 
to   have   been  ;  and   that  the   loans  were   in  some  in 
stances  injudiciously  made ;  but  he  ventured  to  affirm, 
that  had  the  greatest  foresight  and  fortitude  been  ex 
erted,  the  embarrassment  would  have  been  still  very 
great ;  and  that  even  under  the  best  management,  the 
total  derangement  which  was  actually  felt,  would  not 
have  been  postponed  eighteen  months,  had  the  war  so 
long  continued.     How  could  it  be  otherwise  ?     A  war, 
such  as  this  country  was  then  involved  in,  in  a  great 
measure   dries  up  the  resources  of  individuals,  as  he 
had  already  proved ;  and  the  resources  of  the  govern 
ment  are  no  more   than   the   aggregate  of  the  surplus 
incomes  of  individuals  called  into  action  by  a  system  of 
taxation.     It  is  certainly  a  great  political  evil  incident 
to  the  character  of  the  industry  of  this   country,  that, 
however  prosperous  our  situation  when  at  peace,  with 
an  uninterrupted  commerce,   and  nothing  then  could 
exceed  it,  the  moment  that  we  were  involved  in  war 
the   whole   is   reversed.     When    resources   are    most 


1815-16.]       REMARKS    ON    THE    TARIFF    ACT.  123 

needed;  when  indispensable  to  maintain  the  honor; 
yes,  the  very  existence  of  the  nation,  then  they  desert 
us.  Our  currency  is  also  sure  to  experience  the  shock  ; 
and  becomes  so  deranged  as  to  prevent  us  from  calling 
out  fairly  whatever  of  means  is  left  to  the  country. 
The  result  of  a  war  in  the  present  state  of  our  naval 
power  is  the  blockade  of  our  coast,  and  consequent 
destruction  of  our  trade.  The  wants  and  habits  of 
the  country,  founded  on  the  use  of  foreign  articles, 
must  be  gratified  ;  importation  to  a  certain  extent  con 
tinues,  through  the  policy  of  the  enemy,  or  unlawful 
traffic  ;  the  exportation  of  our  bulky  articles  is  pre 
vented  too,  the  specie  of  the  country  is  drawn  to  pay 
the  balance  perpetually  accumulating  against  us ;  and 
the  result  is  a  total  derangement  of  the  currency. 

"  To  this  distressing  state  of  things  there  were  two 
remedies,  and  only  two  ;  one  in  our  power  immediately, 
the  other  requiring  much  time  and  exertion ;  but  both 
constituting,  in  his  opinion,  the  essential  policy  of  this 
country  ;  he  meant  the  navy,  and  domestic  manufac 
tures.  By  the  former,  we  could  open  the  way  to  oui 
markets ;  by  the  latter  we  bring  them  from  beyond  the 
ocean,  and  naturalize  them.  Had  we  the  means  of  at 
taining  an  immediate  naval  ascendency,  he  acknowl 
edged  that  the  policy  recommended  by  this  bill,  would 
be  very  questionable ;  but  as  that  is  not  the  fact — as  it 
is  a  period  remote,  with  any  exertion,  and  will  be 
probably  more  so,  from  that  relaxation  of  exertion,  so 
natural  in  peace,  when  necessity  is  not  felt,  it  became 
the  duty  of  this  house  to  resort,  to  a  considerable  ex 
tent,  at  least  as  far  as  is  proposed,  to  the  only  remain 
ing  remedy.  But  to  this  it  has  been  objected,  that  the 


124  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16. 

country  is  not  prepared,  and  that  the  result  of  our 
premature  exertion  would  be  to  bring  distress  on  it, 
without  effecting  the  intended  object.  Were  it  so, 
however  urgent  the  reasons  in  its  favor,  we  ought  to 
desist,  as  it  is  folly  to  oppose  the  laws  of  necessity. 
But  he  could  not  for  a  moment  yield  to  the  assertion  ; 
on  the  contrary,  he  firmly  believed  that  the  country  is 
prepared,  even  to  maturity,  for  the  introduction  of 
manufactures.  We  have  abundance  of  resources,  and 
things  naturally  tend  at  this  moment  in  that  direction. 
A  prosperous  commerce  has  poured  an  immense  amount 
of  commercial  capital  into  this  country.  This  capital 
has,  till  lately,  found  occupation  in  commerce  ;  but 
that  state  of  the  world  which  transferred  it  to  this 
country,  and  gave  it  active  employment,  has  passed 
away,  never  to  return.  Where  shall  we  now  find  full 
employment  for  our  prodigious  amount  of  tonnage ; 
where  markets  for  the  numerous  and  abundant  pro 
ducts  of  our  country  ?  This  great  body  of  active  cap 
ital,  which  for  the  moment  has  found  sufficient  employ 
ment  in  supplying  our  markets,  exhausted  by  the  war, 
and  measures  preceding  it,  must  find  a  new  direction  ; 
it  will  not  be  idle.  What  channel  can  it  take,  but  that 
of  manufactures  ?  This,  if  things  continue  as  they 
are,  will  be  its  direction.  It  will  introduce  a  new  era 
ui  our  affairs,  in  many  respects  highly  advantageous, 
.ind  ought  to  be  countenanced  by  the  government.  Be 
sides,  we  have  already  surmounted  the  greatest  diffi 
culty  that  has  ever  been  found  in  undertakings  of  this 
kind.  The  cotton  and  woollen  manufactures  are  not 
to  be  introduced — they  are  already  introduced  to  a 
great  extent ;  freeing  us  entirely  from  the  hazards,  and, 


1815-16.]       REMARKS    ON    THE    TARIFF    ACT.  125 

in  a  great  measure,  the  sacrifices  experienced  in  giving 
the  capital  of  the  country  a  new  direction.  The  re 
strictive  measures  and  the  war,  though  not  intended  for 
that  purpose,  have,  by  the  necessary  operation  of 
things,  turned  a  large  amount  of  capital  to  this  new 
branch  of  industry.  He  had  often  heard  it  said,  both 
in  and  out  of  Congress,  that  this  effect  alone  would  in 
demnify  the  country  for  all  of  its  losses.  So  high  was 
this  tone  of  feeling,  when  the  want  of  these  establish 
ments  was  practically  felt,  that  he  remembered,  dur 
ing  the  war,  when  some  question  was  agitated  respect 
ing  the  introduction  of  foreign  goods,  that  many  then 
opposed  it  on  the  ground  of  injuring  our  manufac 
tures.  He  then  said,  that  war  alone  furnished  suf 
ficient  stimulus,  and  perhaps  too  much,  as  it  would 
make  their  growth  unnaturally  rapid ;  but,  that  on  the 
return  of  peace,  it  would  then  be  time  to  show  our 
affection  for  them.  He  at  that  time  did  not  expect  an 
apathy  and  aversion  to  the  extent  which  is  now  seen. 
But  it  will  no  doubt  be  said,  if  they  are  so  far  estab 
lished,  and  if  the  situation  of  the  country  is  so  favor 
able  to  their  growth,  where  is  the  necessity  of  affording 
them  protection  ?  It  is  to  put  them  beyond  the  reach 
of  contingency.  Besides,  capital  is  not  yet,  and  can 
not,  for  some  time,  be  adjusted  to  the  new  state  of 
things.  There  is,  in  fact,  from  the  operation  of  tem 
porary  causes,  a  great  pressure  on  these  establishments. 
They  had  extended  so  rapidly  during  the  late  war,  that 
many,  he  feared,  were  without  the  requisite  surplus 
capital,  or  skill,  to  meet  the  present  crisis.  Should  such 
prove  to  be  the  fact,  it  would  give  a  back  set,  and 
might,  to  a  great  extent,  endanger  their  ultimate  sue- 


126  JOHN    CALDW'ELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16 

cess.  Should  the  present  owners  be  ruined,  and  the 
workmen  dispersed  and  turn  to  other  pursuits,  the 
country  would  sustain  a  great  loss.  Such  would,  no 
doubt,  be  the  fact  to  a  considerable  extent,  if  not  pro 
tected.  Besides,  circumstances,  if  we  act  with  wis 
dom,  are  favorable  to  attract  to  our  country  much  skill 
and  industry.  The  country  in  Europe,  having  the 
most  skilful  workmen,  is  broken  up.  It  is  to  us,  if 
wisely  used,  more  valuable  than  the  repeal  of  the  Edict 
of  Nantes  was  to  England.  She  had  the  prudence  to 
profit  by  it — let  us  not  discover  less  political  sagacity. 
Afford  to  ingenuity  and  industry  immediate  and  ample 
protection,  and  they  will  not  fail  to  give  a  preference 
to  this  free  and  happy  country. 

"  It  has  been  objected  to  this  bill,  that  it  will  injure 
our  marine,  and  consequently  impair  our  naval  strength. 
How  far  it  is  fairly  liable  to  this  charge,  he  was  not 
prepared  to  say.  He  hoped  and  believed,  it  would  not, 
at  least  to  any  alarming  extent,  have  that  effect  imme 
diately  ;  and  he  firmly  believed,  that  its  lasting  opera 
tion  would  be  highly  beneficial  to  our  commerce.  The 
trade  to  the  East  Indies  would  certainly  be  much 
affected ;  but  it  was  stated  in  debate,  that  the  whole 
of  that  trade  employed  but  six  hundred  sailors.  But 
whatever  might  be  the  loss  in  this,  or  other  branches 
of  our  foreign  commerce,  he  trusted  it  would  be  amply 
compensated  in  our  coasting  trade ;  a  branch  of  navi 
gation  wholly  in  our  own  hands.  It  has  at  all  times 
employed  a  great  amount  of  tonnage,  something  more 
he  believed  than  one  third  of  the  whole  ;  nor  is  it  liable 
to  the  imputation  thrown  out  by  a  member  from  North 
Carolina,  (Mr.  Gaston)  that  it  produced  inferior  sailors. 


1815—16.]       REMARKS    ON    THE    TARIFF    ACT.  127 

It  required  long  and  dangerous  voyages ;  and  if  his  in 
formation  was  correct,  no  branch  of  trade  made  better 
or  more  skilful  seamen.  The  fact  that  it  is  wholly  in 
our  own  hands,  is  a  very  important  one,  while  every 
branch  of  our  foreign  trade  must  suffer  from  competi 
tion  with  other  nations.  Other  objections  of  a  political 
character  were  made  to  the  encouragement  of  manu 
factures.  It  is  said  they  destroy  the  moral  and  physi 
cal  po\Y«r  of  the  people.  This  might  formerly  have 
been  true  to  a  considerable  extent,  before  the  perfec 
tion  of  machinery,  and  when  the  success  of  the  manu 
factures  depended  on  the  minute  sub-division  of  labor. 
At  that  time  it  required  a  large  portion  of  the  popula 
tion  of  a  country  to  be  engaged  in  them ;  and  every 
minute  sub-division  of  labor  is  undoubtedly  unfavorable 
to  the  intellect ;  but  the  great  perfection  of  machinery 
has  in  a  considerable  degree  obviated  these  objections. 
In  fact  it  has  been  stated  that  manufacturing  districts 
in  England  furnish  the  greatest  number  of  recruits  to 
her  army,  and  that,  as  soldiers,  they  are  not  materially 
inferior  to  the  rest  of  her  population.  It  has  been 
further  asserted  that  manufactures  are  the  fruitful 
cause  of  pauperism ;  and  England  has  been  referred 
to  as  furnishing  conclusive  evidence  of  its  truth.  For 
his  part,  he  could  perceive  no  such  tendency  in  them, 
but  the  exact  contrary,  as  they  furnished  new  stimulus 
and  means  of  subsistence  to  the  laboring  classes  of 
the  community.  We  ought  not  to  look  to  the  cotton 
and  woollen  establishments  of  Great  Britain  for  the 
prodigious  numbers  of  poor  with  which  her  population 
was  disgraced.  Causes  much  more  efficient  exist. 
Her  poor  laws  and  statutes  regulating  the  price  of  labor, 


128  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1815-16. 

with  heavy  taxes,  were  the  real  causes.     But  if  it  must 
be  so,  if  the   mere   fact   that   England  manufactured 
more  than  any  other  country,  explained  the   cause  of 
her  having  more  beggars,  it  is  just  as  reasonable   to 
refer  her  courage,  spirit,  and  all  her  masculine  virtues, 
in  which  she  excels  all  other  nations,  with  a  single  ex 
ception  ;  he  meant  our  own  ;  in  which  we  might  with 
out  vanity  challenge  a  preeminence.     Another  objec 
tion  had  been  made,  which  he  must  acknowledge  was 
better  founded,  that  capital  employed  in   manfacturing 
produced  a  greater  dependence  on  the  part  of  the   em 
ployed,  than  in  commerce,  navigation,  or  agriculture 
It  is  certainly  an  evil  and  to  be  regretted ;  but  he  did 
not  think  it  a  decisive  objection  to   the  system  ;  espe 
cially  when  it  had  incidental  political  advantages  which 
in  his  opinion  more  than  counterpoised  it.     It  produced 
an  interest  strictly  American,  as   much  so  as  agricul 
ture  ;  in  which  it  had  the  decided  advantage  of  com 
merce  or  navigation.     The  country  will  from  this  de 
rive  much  advantage.     Again,  it  is  calculated  to  bind 
together  more  closely  our  widely-spread  republic.     It 
will  greatly  increase  our  mutual  dependence  and  inter 
course  ;  and   will   as   a  necessary  consequence,  excite 
an  increased  attention  to  internal  improvement,  a  sub 
ject  every  way  so  intimately  connected  with  the  ulti 
mate  attainment  of  national  strength  and  the  perfection 
of  our   political    institutions.      He   regarded  the   fact 
that  it  would  make  the  parts  adhere  more  closely,  that 
it  would  form  a  new  and  most  powerful  cement,  far 
out-weighing   any  political   objections    that  might   be 
urged  against  the  system.     In  his  opinion  the  liberty 
and    the   union    of   this    country   were    inseparably 


1815-16.]       THIS    SPEECH    UNPREMEDITATED.  129 

united !  That  as  the  destruction  of  the  latter  would 
most  certainly  involve  the  former ;  so  its  maintenance 
will  with  equal  certainty  preserve  it.  He  did  not  speak 
lightly.  He  had  often  and  long  revolved  it  in  his 
mind ;  and  he  had  critically  examined  into  the  causes 
that  destroyed  the  liberty  of  other  states.  There  are 
none  that  apply  to  us,  or  apply  with  a  force  to  alarm. 
The  basis  of  our  republic  is  too  broad  and  its  structure 
too  strong,  to  be  shaken  by  them.  Its  extension  and 
organization  will  be  found  to  afford  effectual  security 
against  their  operation ;  but  let  it  be  deeply  impressed 
on  the  heart  of  this  house  and  country,  that  while  they 
guarded  against  the  old  they  exposed  us  to  a  new  and 
terrible  danger,  disunion.  This  single  word  compre 
hended  almost  the  sum  of  our  political  dangers ;  and 
against  it  we  ought  to  be  perpetually  guarded." 

In  connection  with  the  foregoing  remarks  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  on  the  tariff  act,  it  should  be  mentioned,  that  he 
had  no  present  intention  of  taking  part  in  the  debate, 
when  they  were  delivered.  His  speech  was  an  unpre 
meditated  effort,  made  on  the  spur  of  the  occasion, 
upon  the  particular  and  urgent  request  of  his  friend 
Mr.  Ingham,  of  Pennsylvania.  The  tariff  bill  was 
then  under  discussion,  and  the  House  had  fallen  into 
confusion.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  not  a  frequent  speaker, 
but  was  always  listened  to  with  great  deference  and 
respect.  He  was  therefore  entreated  to  make  some 
remarks,  that  order  and  tranquillity  might  be  restored. 
He  had  been  engaged  in  writing  at  his  desk,  and  had 
made  no  preparation  for  the  debate.  Moreover,  his 
time  and  attention  had  been  so  completely  taken  up 
with  his  appropriate  duties  on  the  currency  committee, 


130  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1815-16. 

that  he  had  reflected  but  little  on  the  merits  of  the 
tariff  question.  His  remarks  were,  consequently,  of  a 
general  character,  and  only  designed  to  present  the 
leading  and  more  striking  considerations  in  favor  of 
the  proposed  Jaw. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  this  subject  was  a  new 
one,  in  so  far  as  the  protective  policy  was  concerned— 
for  previous  tariff  acts  had  been  based  on  revenue 
principles — and  if  Mr.  Calhoun  erred  in  giving  the 
measure  his  support,  it  must  be  attributed  to  that  fact. 
But  he  would  never  himself  admit,  that  there  was  any 
thing  inconsistent  in  his  course  on  this  occasion,  as 
contrasted  with  his  subsequent  action ;  and  in  his  cele 
brated  speech  on  the  Force  Bill,  in  1832,  he  repelled 
the  charge  which  had  been  made  against  him,  with 
much  warmth. 

The  political  aspect  of  the  tariff  question  in  1816, 
was,  indeed,  very  different  from  what  it  afterward  be 
came.  The  interests  affected  by  the  law  that  year, 
and  the  circumstances  attending  its  passage,  were 
peculiar.  From  1792  to  1805,  the  United  States  en 
joyed  a  degree  of  commercial  prosperity  without  par 
allel  in  their  history.  The  desolating  wars  in  Europe, 
and  the  conflict  with  Great  Britain,  put  an  end  to  this 
era  of  successful  commerce,  and  the  capital  which  had 
been  so  profitably  employed  was  now  driven  into  other 
channels.  Manufacturing  establishments  sprung  up  in 
the  northern  and  eastern  states,  and  under  the  influ 
ence  of  the  non-intercourse  policy  they  were  highly 
prosperous.  But  when  peace  came,  and  our  markets 
were  again  opened  to  foreign  importations,  it  was  not 
expected  by  any  one,  that  they  would  be  able  to  sus- 


1815-16.]  PRINCIPLE    OF    THE    LAW.  131 

tain  themselves  against  the  competition  which  they 
would  be  obliged  to  encounter.  It  was  then  urged, 
and  with  a  great  deal  of  plausibility,  that  the  infant 
manufactures  of  the  country,  hitherto  fostered  and  sus 
tained  by  the  existence  of  the  war,  were  deserving  of 
encouragement — not  protection,  be  it  remembered — 
and  that  this  could  be  afforded  in  no  better  way  than 
by  a  tariff  law  enacted  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the 
revenue  needed  for  the  support  of  the  government. 

This  idea  of  encouraging  an  important  interest 
while  in  its  infancy,  and  until  it  became  strong  enough 
to  support  itself,  which,  it  was  said,  it  would  be  able  to 
do  in  ten  or  twelve  years,  was  one  likely  to  have  its 
full  wreight  with  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  was  yet  compara 
tively  a  young  man,  full  of  hope  for  himself  and  his 
country,  enthusiastic  and  patriotic.  But  it  will  be  seen 
from  his  speech  on  the  direct  tax,  and  his  remarks  on 
the  tariff  bill,  that  other  considerations  connected  with 
the  state  of  the  country,  its  future  prosperity,  and  its 
defence  against  foreign  powers,  were  of  paramount  im 
portance  with  him.  The  leading  governments  of 
Europe  had  banded  together  to  put  down  the  popular 
impulses  which  threatened  the  permanency  of  mon 
archical  institutions,  and  Legitimacy  was  now  in  the 
ascendant.  What  further  projects  might  be  contem 
plated  by  the  Holy  Alliance,  were  left  solely  to  conjec 
ture  ;  but  it  was  advisable  to  be  prepared  for  any 
fortune. 

The  lessons  of  experience  were  not  to  be  despised, 
and  a  regard  for  the  safety  of  the  Union  imperatively 
demanded  that  she  should  be  placed  in  a  condition  of 
defence,  and  of  entire  independence  of  foreign  influ- 


132  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1815-16. 

ences.  The  former,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  contended,  might 
be  secured,  by  the  augmentation  of  the  army  and  navy 
and  the  fortification  of  the  sea-coast,  and  the  latter,  by 
increasing  the  prosperity  and  wealth  of  the  people,  to 
which  end  a  sound  currency  and  the  encouragement 
of  domestic  interests  were  essential. 

Protection,  to  a  certain  but  limited  extent,  was  af 
forded  by  the  law  of  1816,  but  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
the  revenue  idea  was  the  controlling  one,  inasmuch  as 
the  average  rate  of  duties  imposed  by  the  act  barely 
exceeded  thirty  per  cent.  This  is  further  made  evi 
dent  by  the  fact,  that  the  sum  of  ten  millions  of  dol 
lars  was  appropriated  annually  to  the  sinking  fund,  pro 
vided  for  the  payment  of  the  public  debt;  and  it  was 
also  anticipated,  that  there  would  be  a  still  further  ex 
cess  of  revenue,  to  be  carried  to  the  same  object.  If 
the  measure,  then,  was  not  mainly  of  a  revenue  char 
acter,  it  would  have  been  the  height  of  folly  to  have 
indulged  any  such  expectations  ;  for  it  is  undoubtedly 
true,  as  a  general  rule,  that  the  duties  realized  from  a 
high  protective  tariff  are  much  less  in  amount  than 
those  afforded  by  a  low,  or  strictly  revenue  tariff. 

There  were  two  features  of  the  act  of  1816,  and 
only  two,  which  trespassed  beyond  the  revenue  limit. 
Most  of  the  leading  objects  of  protection  were  subject 
to  a  duty  of  only  twenty  per  cent. ;  but  the  duty  on 
iron  was  first  fixed  at  seventy-five  cents  the  hundred 
weight,  and  afterward  reduced  to  forty-five  cents ;  and 
the  minimum  principle  was  introduced  in  establishing 
the  high  duties  on  coarse  cotton.  These  were  great 
errors,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  subsequently  admitted.*  Leav- 

*  Speech  against  the  Force  Bill. 


1815-16.]  ERRORS.  133 

ing  them  out  of  view,  the  law  was  not  essentially  dif 
ferent,  in  any  of  its  details,  from  what  it  would  have 
been  had  not  a  single  manufacturing  establishment  ex 
isted  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic. 

Mr.  Calhoun  never  denied  the  power  of  Congress  to 
impose  duties  for  revenue,  nor  that  the  favorable  effects 
of  such  imposition  on  the  manufacturing  interest  might 
be  properly  taken  into  consideration  in  the  enactment 
of  tariff'  laws.  Such  were  his  opinions  in  1816,  and 
they  were  never  changed  at  any  period  of  his  life. 
Coming  from  a  state  whose  great  staples  were  not  all 
required  for  home  consumption,  but  were  driven  in  part 
to  seek  a  foreign  market,  where  the  prices  realised  for 
the  surplus  governed  the  value  of  the  whole,  the  posi 
tion  which  he  occupied  on  the  tariff  question,  and 
\vhich  South  Carolina  held  through  him,  was  a  most 
magnanimous  one.  When  the  manufacturing  interest 
was  in  its  infancy  he  was  disposed  to  encourage  it,  but 
when  he  saw  it  becoming  a  powerful  monopoly,  daily 
waxing  stronger  and  stronger,  and  like  the  banyan  tree 
extending  itself  in  every  direction,  and  overshadowing 
the  land  whose  nourishing  properties  it  exhausted, — 
when  he  beheld  a  powerful  party  in  the  country  arrayed 
on  its  side,  and  the  fidelity  of  the  other  to  republican 
principles  not  always  proof  against  temptation, — he  felt 
bound  to  raise  his  voice  in  remonstrance  ;  but  those 
who  are  sincere  in  the  opinion  that  he  committed 
errors  then,  should  not  forget  any  of  the  circumstances, 
— they  should  remember  the  cause  and  the  provocation. 

As  Mr.  Calhoun  had  ever  been  one  of  the  most 
prominent  advocates  of  the  improvement  of  the  army, 
as  well  in  its  discipline  as  in  its  materiel,  he  was  a 


134  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1815-16 

warm  friend  to  the  military  academy,  and  with  Mr. 
Forsyth  and  others,  successfully  resisted  an  attempt 
made  at  this  session  to  reduce  the  number  of  cadets. 
He  maintained  that  active  and  good  soldiers  might 
easily  be  made  out  of  any  portion  of  the  population  of 
the  United  States,  but  in  order  to  accomplish  this,  the 
more  general  diffusion  of  military  science  was  neces 
sary,  for  without  it  the  militia  would  be  totally  ineffi 
cient,  and  "but  a  rabble  without  discipline." 

During  the  session  of  1815-16,  also,  a  bill  was  passed 
changing  the  mode  of  compensation  of  members  of 
Congress,  from  the  per  diem  allowance  to  an  annual 
salary  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars.  Although  this  meas 
ure  was  probably  as  fair  and  as  just  a  one  as  could 
have  been  devised,  it  proved  to  be  unpopular  with  the 
people  all  over  the  Union  ;  and  in  a  great  majority  of 
cases,  those  members  who  had  voted  for  it  were  not 
again  returned  by  their  constituents.  Mr.  Calhoun 
had  supported  the  bill  throughout,  and  on  his  return 
home  he  found  the  current  setting  strongly  against  him. 
His  uncle,  Joseph  Calhoun,  who  resided  in  Abbeville, 
and  General  William  Butler,  of  Edgefield,  both  of 
whom  had  previously  represented  his  district,  con 
demned  his  course  in  decided  terms,  and  the  latter 
offered  himself  as  a  candidate  against  him.  Indeed, 
the  prevailing  opinion  was  so  decidedly  hostile,  that 
very  few  of  his  friends  had  sufficient  courage  to  face 
the  storm  of  censure  and  openly  to  vindicate  his  vote. 

Many  thought  it  was  not  advisable  for  him  to  subject 
himself  to  a  public  expression  of  the  displeasure  of  his 
constituents,  by  offering  for  reelection.  Others  urged 
him  to  apologize  for  his  course,  and  to  appeal  to  the 


1816-17.]  HIS    RE-ELECTION.  135 

kind  feelings  of  those  whom  he  had  represented,  to 
overlook  this,  his  single  error,  during  a  service  of  five 
years.  To  one  and  all  he  returned  for  answer,  that  he 
had  supported  the  compensation  act  because  he  thought 
it  was  right,  and  he  only  asked  that  his  constituents 
would  allow  him  an  opportunity  to  defend  himself,  and 
grant  him  a  fair  hearing.  The  request  was  too  just  a 
one  to  be  denied.  A  day  wras  fixed  in  each  of  the  dis 
tricts  of  Abbeville  and  Edgefield,  for  Mr.  Calhoun  to 
address  the  people  at  the  court-houses.  The  ties  be 
tween  them  and  the  able  and  talented  representative  to 
whom  they  had  been  so  long  and  so  warmly  attached, 
were  far  too  strong  to  be  lightly  severed,  and  they 
cheerfully  came  together  in  great  numbers  to  hear  what 
he  had  to  say  in  his  defence.  Instead  of  apologizing 
for  his  course,  or  appealing  to  their  feelings  and  sym 
pathies,  he  manfully  defended  his  vote,  and  so  power 
ful  and  convincing  were  his  arguments  that  he  was 
triumphantly  reflected. 

Such  is  always  the  reward  of  fidelity,  honesty,  and 
independence,  in  the  legislator.  Misrepresentation  and 
calumny  may  meet  with  temporary  success  ;  he  may 
be  prostrated  for  a  time  ;  but  his  day  of  triumph  will 
surely  come,  when  his  virtues  will  shine  more  brightly 
than  ever,  as  they  burst  forth  from  the  clouds  which 
had  obscured  their  effulgence. 

At  the  ensuing  session  of  Congress, — in  1816-17, — 
a  bill  repealing  the  compensation  act  was  introduced ; 
but  Mr.  Calhoun  still  refused  to  yield  to  the  clamor 
which  had  been  raised  against  the  law.  He  again  dis 
cussed  the  merits  of  the  question,  and  defended  the 
policy  and  justice  of  the  measure.  But  the  majority 


138  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1816-17. 

could  not  withstand  the  tempest  of  popular  indigna 
tion  ;  they  did  not  attempt  to  disabuse  the  public  mind 
of  the  false  impressions  under  which  it  labored,  but 
hastened  to  conciliate  their  constituents  by  erasing  the 
unfortunate  enactment  from  the  statute-book.  So  con 
spicuous  was  Mr.  Calhoun  on  this  occasion,  for  his  un 
compromising  integrity  and  the  independence  of  his 
course,  that  Mr.  Grosvenor,  a  federal  member  from 
New  York,  who  had  had  a  personal  difference  with  the 
former  in  one  of  the  secret  sessions  during  the  war 
and  was  not  on  speaking  terms  with  him,  took  occasion 
to  say  in  the  course  of  the  debate  on  the  repeal  bill, 
that  "  he  had  heard,  with  peculiar  satisfaction,  the  able, 
manly,  and  constitutional  speech  of  the  gentleman 
from  South  Carolina"  (Mr.  Calhoun).  "  I  will  not  be 
restrained,"  he  added.  "  No  barrier  shall  exist  which 
I  will  not  leap  over,  for  the  purpose  of  offering  to  that 
gentleman  my  thanks  for  the  judicious,  independent, 
and  national  course  which  he  has  pursued  in  this 
House  for  the  last  two  years,  and  particularly  upon  the 
subject  now  before  us.  Let  the  honorable  gentleman 
continue  with  the  same  manly  independence,  aloof 
from  party  views  and  local  prejudices,  to  pursue  the 
great  interests  of  his  country,  and  fulfil  the  high  des 
tiny  for  which  it  is  manifest  he  was  born.  The  buzz 
of  popular  applause  may  not  cheer  him  on  his  way,  but 
he  will  inevitably  arrive  at  a  high  and  happy  elevation 
in  the  view  of  his  country  and  the  world." 

Among  the  other  subjects  connected  with  the  de 
fence  and  prosperity  of  the  country,  which  Mr.  Cal 
houn  considered  in  his  speech  on  the  direct  tax,  was 
that  of  internal  improvements.  In  common  with  most 


1816-17.]  INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS.  137 

of  the  younger  members  of  the  republican  party  at 
that  day,  he  was  favorably  impressed  in  behalf  of  the 
construction  of  such  works,  and  thought  the  power  of 
Congress  over  the  subject  was  embraced  in  that  "  to 
lay  and  collect  taxes,  duties,  'imposts  and  excises,  to 
pay  the  debts  and  provide  for  the  common  defence  and 
general  welfare."  Subsequent  reflection  and  experi 
ence  taught  him  his  error,  when  his  opinions  were 
promptly  corrected  ;  but  in  1816  he  expressed  himself 
in  favor  of  the  establishment  of  roads  and  opening 
canals  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  for  the  con 
venience  of  our  widely-dispersed  population,  and  of 
the  construction  of  military  roads,  the  want  of  which 
for  the  transportation  of  munitions  of  war  and  supplies, 
during  the  war  of  1812,  had  been  attended  with  such 
disastrous  consequences. 

In  his  annual  message  at  the  first  session  of  Con 
gress  after  the  close  of  the  war,  Mr.  Madison  called 
the  attention  of  members  to  the  subject  of  internal  im 
provements,  and  recommended  Congress  to  exercise  all 
its  constitutional  powers  in  the  premises,  and  if  they 
were  found  inadequate,  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to 
amend  the  constitution.  Acting  in  accordance  with 
what  he  supposed  to  be  the  viewrs  and  wishes  of  the 
President,  Mr.  Calhoun  introduced  a  resolution  into 
the  House,  on  the  16th  of  December,  1816,  directing 
that  a  committee  should  be  appointed  to  inquire  into 
the  expediency  of  setting  apart  the  bonus  paid  to  the 
United  States  by  the  national  bank,  and  the  net  annual 
profits  on  their  stock,  as  a  permanent  fund  for  internal 
improvements.  The  resolution  was  adopted  and  the 
committee  appointed — Mr.  Calhoun  being  its  chairman. 


138  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1816-17. 

On  the  23rd  instant  he  reported  a  bill  which  he  had 
prepared,  setting  apart  and  pledging  the  bonus  and 
dividends  as  contemplated  by  the  resolution.  But  little 
discussion  was  had  on  the  bill,  and  after  being  amended, 
on  motion  of  Mr.  Pickering,  so  as  to  require  the  ob 
taining  of  the  assent  of  a  state  to  the  construction  of 
roads  or  canals  within  its  territorial  limits,  it  was 
passed  by  a  small  majority.  In  the  Senate  it  was  also 
sustained  by  a  majority  vote,  and  was  sent  to  the 
President. 

Although  the  bill  of  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  claim  for 
Congress  the  power  to  construct  works  of  internal 
improvement  within  the  states,  or  pretend  in  any  way 
to  define  the  power,  it  was  undoubtedly  taken  for 
granted.  In  his  speech  on  the  bill,  Mr.  Calhoun  did 
not  examine  the  constitutional  question,  notwithstand 
ing  he  was  urged  to  do  so,  but  contented  himself  with 
saying  that  he  believed  the  power  existed,  though  he 
was  not  prepared  to  say  to  what  extent.  The  bill  was 
laid  before  the  President  a  few  days  prior  to  the  ad 
journment  of  Congress  and  the  close  of  his  administra 
tion,  and  when  Mr.  Calhoun  called  to  take  his  leave, 
the  latter  learned  for  the  first  time,  much  to  his  regret 
and  chagrin,  that  it  did  not  meet  with  the  approbation 
of  the  executive.  On  the  3rd  day  of  March,  1817,  the 
bill  was  returned  to  the  House  with  the  objections  of 
the  President,  based  mainly  upon  the  want  of  power  in 
Congress  until  the  constitution  was  amended  as  he  had 
suggested.  The  bill  was  now  lost, — not  two  thirds  of 
the  members  voting  in  its  favor.  Mr.  Calhoun,  how 
ever,  with  Mr.  Forsyth,  and  his  colleague,  Mr.  Huger, 
still  supported  the  measure. 


1816-17.]  MR.  CALHOUN'S  BILL.  139 

No  actual  appropriation  of  money  was  made  by  this 
bill,  nor  were  any  particular  works  of  internal  improve 
ment  authorized  to  be  constructed,  yet  the  constitu 
tional  principle  was  probably  involved  in  it,  at  least 
indirectly.  The  views  of  Mr.  Calhoun  upon  the  ques 
tion  subsequently  underwent  a  material  change,  as  the 
reader  will  discover. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

Expiration  of  his  Service  in  the  House  of  Representatives — Appointed 
Secretary  of  War — Management  of  the  Affairs  of  the  Department — 
Financial  System— Other  Improvements  introduced — Reorganization 
of  the  Army — System  of  Fortifications — Medical  Statistics — Missouri 
Compromise — Tariff  Act  of  1824 — Internal  Improvements. 

WITH  the  3rd  day  of  March,  1817,  closed  the  period 
of  Mr.  Calhoun's  service  in  the  popular  branch  of  Con 
gress.  The  trust  confided  to  him  was  now  returned  tc 
those  whom  he  had  represented — in  such  a  spirit  of 
devotion  to  their  interests,  and  with  such  credit  to  him 
self, — not  diminished  or  impaired  in  aught,  but  rendered 
more  valuable  by  the  fidelity  with  which  it  had  been 
guarded,  and  the  enviable  reputation  he  had  won  in  it! 
defence.  He  had  been  chosen  for  another  term,  but  af 
the  time  of  his  reelection  he  did  not  anticipate  the 
honors  which  Fortune  had  in  store  for  him. 

Although  he  had  been  in  Congress  but  for  the  short 
period  of  six  years,  his  character  was  known  and  under 
stood  in  every  part  of  the  country.  His  friends  and 
admirers  were  numerous,  and  the  new  President  en 
tertained  a  high  opinion  of  his  talents  and  integrity. 
"  Shortly  before  the  meeting  of  Congress  at  the  next 
session,  [in  December,  1817,]  he  received  an  invitation 
from  Mr.  Monroe  to  take  a  place  in  his  cabinet  as  Sec 
retary  of  War.*  It  was  unsolicited  and  unexpected. 

*  Mr.  Calhoun  was  appointed  in  the  place  of  Governor  Shelby,  of 


1817—25.]       APPOINTED    SECRETARY    OF    WAR.  141 

His  friends,  with  some  exceptions,  advised  against  his 
acceptance,  on  the  ground  that  Congress  was  the  proper 
theatre  for  his  talents  ;  Mr.  Lowndes  concurred  in  this 
advice,  and,  among  other  reasons,  urged  that  his  im 
provement  in  speaking  had  been  such  that  he  was  de 
sirous  to  see  the  degree  of  eminence  he  would  reach 
by  practice.  Indeed,  the  prevailing  opinion  at  the  time 
was,  that  his  talent  lay  more  in  the  power  of  thought 
than  action.  His  great  powers  of*  analysis  and  gener 
alization  were  calculated  to  make  the  impression,  which 
was  not  uncommon  at  that  time,  that  his  mind  was 
more  metaphysical  than  practical,  and  that  he  would 
lose  reputation  in  taking  charge  of  a  department, 
especially  one  in  a  state  of  such  disorder  and  confusion 
as  the  war  department  was  then.  The  reasons  assigned 
by  his  friends  served  but  to  confirm  Mr.  Calhoun  in 
the  opinion  that  he  ought  to  accept.  He  believed  the 
impression  of  his  friends  was  erroneous  as  to  the  char 
acter  of  his  mind ;  but  if  not,  if  his  powers  lay  rather 
in  thinking  and  speaking  than  in  execution,  it  was  but 
the  more  necessary  he  should  exercise  them  in  the  lat 
ter,  and  thereby  strengthen  them  where  they  were 
naturally  the  weakest.  He  also  believed  that  he  could 
render  more  service  to  the  country  in  reforming  that 
great  disbursing  department  of  government,  admitted 
to  be  in  a  state  of  much  disorder,  than  he  could  possi 
bly  do  by  continuing  in  Congress,  where  most  of  the 
great  questions  growing  out  of  a  return  to  a  state  of 
peace  had  been  discussed  and  settled.  Under  the  in 
fluence  of  these  motives,  he  accepted  the  proffered  ap- 

Kentucky,  who  had  declined  the  appointment  tendered  to  him  by  Mr. 
Monroe. 


142  JOHN   CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1817-25. 

pointment,  and  entered  on  the  duties  of  the  department 
early  in  December,  1817. 

"  Thus,  after  six  years  of  distinguished  services  in 
Congress,  during  which  Mr.  Calhoun  bore  a  prominent 
and  efficient  part  in  originating  and  supporting  all  the 
measures  necessary  to  carry  the  country  through  one 
of  the  most  trying  and  difficult  periods  of  its  existence, 
and  had  displayed  throughout  great  ability  as  a  legis 
lator  and  a  speaker,  we  find  him  in  a  new  scene,  where 
his  talents  for  business  and  administration  for  the  first 
time  are  to  be  tried.  He  took  possession  of  his  depart 
ment  at  the  most  unfavorable  period.  Congress  was 
in  session,  when  much  of  the  time  of  the  secretary  is 
necessarily  occupied  in  meeting  the  various  calls  for 
information  from  the  two  Houses,  and  attending  to  the 
personal  application  of  the  members  on  the  business  of 
their  constituents.  Mr.  Graham,  the  chief  clerk,  an 
able  and  experienced  officer,  retired  shortly  afterward, 
and  a  new  and  totally  inexperienced  successor  had  to 
be  appointed  in  his  place.  The  department  was  almost 
literally  without  organization,  and  everything  in  a  state 
of  confusion.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  paid  but  little  atten 
tion  to  military  subjects  in  any  of  their  various 
branches.  He  had  never  read  a  treatise  on  the  sub 
ject,  except  a  small  volume  on  the  Staff. 

"  In  this  absence  of  information,  he  determined  at 
once  to  do  as  little  as  possible  at  first,  and  to  be  a  good 
listener  and  a  close  observer  till  he  could  form  a  just 
conception  of  the  actual  state  of  the  department  and 
what  was  necessary  to  be  done.  Acting  on  this  pru 
dent  rule,  he  heard  all  and  observed  everything,  and 
reflected  on  and  digested  all  that  he  heard  and  saw. 


1817-25.]     NEW  RULES  AND  REGULATIONS.          143 

In  less  than  three  months  he  became  so  well  acquainted 
with  the  state  of  the  department,  and  what  was  re 
quired  to  be  done,  that  he  drew  up  himself,  without 
consultation,  the  bill  for  organizing  it  on  4^e  bureau 
principle,  and  succeeded  in  getting  it  throug«  <  Congress 
against  a  formidable  opposition,  who  denounced  it  as 
wild  and  impracticable.  But,  on  the  contrary,  this 
organization  has  been  proved  to  be  so  perfect,  that  it 
has  remained  unchanged  through  all  the  vicissitudes 
and  numerous  changes  of  parties  till  this  time,  a  period 
of  twenty-five  years. 

"But  that  was  only  the  first  step.  The  most  perfect 
system  is  of  little  value  without  able  and  faithful 
officers  to  carry  it  into  execution.  The  President, 
under  his  advice,  selected  to  fill  the  several  bureaus 
such  officers  as  had  the  confidence  of  the  army  for 
ability  and  integrity,  and  possessing  an  aptitude  of  tal 
ent  for  the  service  of  the  bureau  for  which  they  were 
respectively  selected.  With  each  of  these  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  associated  a  junior  officer,  having  like  qualifica 
tions,  for  his  assistant.  But,  to  give  effect  to  the  sys 
tem,  one  thing  was  still  wanting — a  code  of  rules  for 
the  department  and  each  of  its  bureaus,  in  order  to 
give  uniformity,  consistency,  efficacy,  and  stability  to 
the  whole.  These  he  prepared,  with  the  assistance  of 
the  heads  of  the  respective  bureaus,  under  the  pro 
vision  of  the  bill  for  the  organization  of  the  depart 
ment,  which  gave  the  secretary  the  power  to  establish 
rules  not  inconsistent  with  existing  laws.  They  form 
a  volume  of  considerable  size,  which,  like  the  act  itself, 
remains  substantially  the  same,  though,  it  is  to  be 
feared,  too  often  neglected  in  practice  by  some  of  his 


144  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.      [1817-25. 

successors.  All  this  was  completed  in  the  course  of  a 
few  months  after  the  passage  of  the  act,  and  the  sys 
tem  put  into  active  operation.  It  worked  without 
a  jar. 

"  In  a  short  time  its  fruits  began  to  show  themselves 
in  the  increased  efficiency  of  the  department  and  the 
correction  of  abuses,  many  of  which  were  of  long  stand 
ing.  To  trace  his  acts  through  the  period  of  more 
than  seven  years,  during  which  Mr.  Calhoun  remained 
in  the  war-office,  would  be  tedious,  and  occupy  more 
space  than  the  object  of  this  sketch  would  justify. 
The  results,  which,  after  all,  are  the  best  tests  of  the 
system  and  the  efficiency  of  an  administration,  must  be 
taken  as  a  substitute.  Suffice  it,  then,  to  say,  that 
when  he  came  into  office,  he  found  it  in  a  state  of 
chaos,  and  left  it,  even  in  the  opinion  of  opponents,  in 
complete  organization  and  order.  An  officer  of  high 
standing  and  a  competent  judge  pronounced  it  the  most 
perfectly  organized  and  efficient  military  establishment 
for  its  size  in  the  world.  He  found  it  with  upward  of 
$40,000,000  of  unsettled  accounts,  many  of  them  of 
long  standing,  going  back  almost  to  the  origin  of  the 
government,  and  he  reduced  them  to  less  than  three 
millions,  which  consisted,  for  the  most  part,  of  losses, 
and  accounts  that  never  can  be  settled.  He  prevented 
all  current  accumulation,  by  a  prompt  and  rigid  en 
forcement  of  accountability ;  so  much  so,  that  he  was 
enabled  to  report  to  Congress  in  1823,  that  "of  the 
entire  amount  of  money  drawn  from  the  treasury  in 
1822  for  military  service,  including  pensions  amount 
ing  to  $4,571,961  94,  although  it  passed  through  the 
hands  of  two  hundred  and  ninety-one  disbursing  officers, 


1817-25.]   MANAGEMENT  OF  DEPARTMENT.        145 

there  has  not  been  a  single  defalcation,  nor  the  loss  of 
a  single  cent  to  the  government"  He  found  the  army 
proper,  including  the  Military  Academy,  costing  an 
nually  more  than  8451  per  man,  including  officers,  pro 
fessors,  and  cadets,  and  he  left  the  -cost  less  than  $287  ; 
or,  to  do  more  exact  justice  to  his  economy,  he  dimin 
ished  such  parts  of  the  cost  per  man  as  were  suscepti 
ble  of  reduction  by  an  efficient  administration,  exclud 
ing  pay  and  such  parts  as  were  fixed  in  moneyed 
compensation  by  law,  from  $299  to  $150.  All  this 
was  effected  by  wise  reforms,  and  not  by  parsimony 
(for  he  was  liberal,  as  many  supposed,  to  a  fault)  in  the 
quality  and  quantity  of  the  supplies,  and  not  by  a  fall 
of  prices ;  for  in  making  the  calculation,  allowance  is 
made  for  the  fall  or  rise  of  prices  on  every  article  of 
supply.  The  gross  saving  on  the  army  was  $1,300,000 
annually,  in  an  expenditure  which  reached  $4,000,000 
when  he  came  into  the  department.  This  does  not  in 
clude  the  other  branches  of  service,  the  ordnance,  the 
engineer  and  Indian  bureaus,  in  all  of  which  a  like 
rigid  economy  and  accountability  were  introduced, 
with  similar  results  in  saving  to  the  government. 

"  These  great  improvements  were  made  under  ad 
verse  circumstances.  Party  excitement  ran  high  dur 
ing  the  period,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  came  in  for  his  full 
share  of  opposition  and  misrepresentation,  which  may 
be  explained  by  the  fact  that  his  name  had  been  pre 
sented  as  a  candidate  for  the  presidency.  He  was 
often  thwarted  in  his  views  and  defeated  in  his  meas 
ures,  and  was  made  for  years  the  subject  of  almost  in 
cessant  attacks  in  Congress,  against  which  he  had  to 
defend  himself,  but  with  such  complete  success,  finally, 


146  JOHN    CALDWELL   CALHOUN.  [1817-25. 

as  to  silence  his  assailants.  They  had  been  kept  con 
stantly  informed  of  every  movement  in  his  department 
susceptible  of  misconstruction  or  of  being  turned 
against  him.  One  of  the  representatives,  who  boarded 
in  the  same  house  with  his  principal  assailant,  offered 
to  disclose  to  Mr.  Calhoun  the  channel  through  which 
his  opponents  in  Congress  derived  the  information  on 
which  they  based  their  attacks.  Mr.  Calhoun  declined 
to  receive  it.  He  said  he  did  not  object  that  any  act 
of  the  department  should  be  known  to  his  bitterest 
enemies :  that  he  thought  well  of  all  about  him,  and 
did  not  desire  to  change  his  opinion ;  and  all  that  he 
regretted  was,  that  if  there  was  any  one  near  him  who 
desired  to  communicate  anything  to  any  member,  he 
did  not  ask  for  his  permission,  which  he  would  freely 
have  given.  He  felt  conscious  he  was  doing  his  duty, 
and  dreaded  no  attack.  In  fact,  he  felt  no  wish  that 
these  attacks  should  be  discontinued.  He  knew  how 
difficult  it  was  to  reform  long-standing  and  inveterate 
abuses,  and  he  used  the  assaults  on  the  department  and 
the  army  as  the  means  of  reconciling  the  officers,  who 
might  be  profiting  by  them,  to  the  measures  he  had 
adopted  for  their  correction,  and  to  enlist  them  heartily 
in  cooperating  with  him  in  their  correction,  as  the 
most  certain  means  of  saving  the  establishment  and 
themselves.  To  this  cause,  and  to  the  strong  sense 
of  justice  which  he  exhibited  on  all  occasions,  by 
the  decided  support  he  gave  to  all  who  did  their  duty, 
and  his  no  less  decided  discharge  of  his  duty  against 
all  who  neglected  or  omitted  it,  is  to  be  attributed  the 
fact  that  he  carried  through  so  thorough  a  reform, 
where  there  was  so  much  disorder  and  abuse,  with  a 


1817-25.]       MANAGEMENT    OF    DEPARTMENT.  147 

popularity  constantly  increasing  with  the  army.  Never 
did  a  secretary  leave  a  department  with  more  popu 
larity  or  a  greater  degree  of  attachment  and  devotion 
on  the  part  of  those  connected  with  it  than  he  did. 

"  In  addition  to  the  ordinary  duties  of  the  depart 
ment,  he  made  many  and  able  reports  on  the  subject  of 
our  Indian  affairs,  on  the  reduction  of  the  army,  on  in 
ternal  improvements,  and  others.  He  revived  the  Mili 
tary  Academy,  which  he  found  in  a  very  disordered 
state,  and  left  it  in  great  perfection  ;  he  caused  a  minute 
and  accurate  survey  to  be  made  of  the  military  frontier, 
inland  and  maritime,  and  projected,  through  an  able 
board  of  engineers,  a  plan  for  their  defence.  In  con 
formity  with  this  plan,  he  commenced  a  system  of  forti 
fication,  and  made  great  progress  in  its  execution,  and 
he  established  a  cordon  of  military  posts  from  the  lakes 
around  our  north-western  and  south-western  frontiers  to 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico. 

"  Another  measure  remains  to  be  noticed,  which  will 
be  regarded  in  after-times  as  one  of  the  most  striking 
and  useful,  although  it  has  heretofore  attracted  much 
less  attention  than  it  deserves.  In  organizing  the  medi 
cal  department,  Mr.  Calhoun,  with  those  enlarged  views 
and  devotion  to  science  which  have  ever  characterized 
him,  directed  the  surgeons  at  all  the  military  posts  ex 
tending  over  our  vast  country,  to  report  accurately  to 
the  surgeon-general  at  Washington  every  case  of 
disease,  its  character,  its  treatment,  and  the  result,  and 
also  to  keep  a  minute  register  of  the  weather,  the  tem 
perature,  the  moisture,  and  the  winds,  to  be  reported  in 
like  manner  to  the  surgeon-general.  To  enable  them 
to  comply  with  the  order,  he  directed  the  surgeons  at 


148  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1817-25. 

the  various  posts  to  be  furnished  with  thermometers, 
barometers,  and  hygrometers,  and  the  surgeon-general 
from  time  to  time  to  publish  the  result  of  their  observa 
tions  in  condensed  reports,  which  were  continued  dur 
ing  the  time  he  remained  in  the  war  department.  The 
result  has  been,  a  mass  of  valuable  facts,  connected 
with  the  diseases  and  the  climate  of  our  widely-ex 
tended  country,  collected  through  the  long  period  of 
nearly  a  quarter  of  a  century."* 

The  important  facts  thus  obtained  under  the  auspices 
of  Mr.  Calhoun,  were  afterward  collected  and  arranged 
by  the  late  Dr.  Samuel  Forry,  then  of  the  United  States 
Army,  and,  together  with  other  materials,  published  by 
him  in  three  different  works,  entitled  "  Medical  Statis 
tics  of  the  United  States,"  "  The  Climate  of  the  United 
States  and  its  Endemic  Influences,"  and  "  Meteorology." 
Besides  rendering  his  aid  and  assistance  in  securing 
these  valuable  contributions  to  the  cause  of  science, 
Mr.  Calhoun  was  one  of  the  earliest  friends  and  advo 
cates  of  that  great  national  enterprise — the  coast  sur 
vey — originated  during  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Monroe.  He  laid  the  foundation,  too,  of  the  extensive 
gallery  of  Indian  portraits  which  long  adorned  the  walls 
of  the  War  office,  and  constitute  now  one  of  the  most 
attractive  and  interesting  ornaments  of  the  halls  of  the 
National  Institute. 

In  every  branch  of  his  duties  as  the  presiding  officer 
of  the  war  department,  Mr.  Calhoun  did  the  state  good 
service  ;  and  the  influence  of  his  clear  rnind,  his  pre 
cision  and  love  of  order,  his  punctuality  and  integrity, 
was  felt  by  all  his  subordinate  officers  and  agents.  The 
*  Memoir  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  1843. 


1817-25.]   IMPROVEMENTS  INTRODUCED  BY  HIM.    149 

improvements  which  he  introduced  were  not  evanescent 
in  their  character,  nor  of  temporary  duration  ;  but  they 
were  designed  to  be  permanent,  and  the  sequel  proved 
them  such  in  reality.  His  purgation  of  the  Augean 
stable  wras  complete.  Unsettled  accounts  were  no 
longer  left  to  accumulate  till  the  halls  of  Congress  echoed 
and  reechoed  with  the  clamors  of  the  public  creditor ; 
the  reorganization  of  the  army  was  as  admirable  in  prac 
tice  as  in  theory  ;  the  system  of  fortifications  which  he 
proposed,  maritime  as  well  as  frontier,  afforded  all  the 
protection  needed  or  desired ;  and  the  removal  of  the 
Indians  beyond  the  Mississippi,  which  he  warmly  rec 
ommended,  as  experience  has  demonstrated,  was  a 
boon  and  a  blessing  to  the  red  men  of  the  forest.  The 
system  of  financial  administration  which  he  first  estab 
lished,  is  still  in  operation — daily  bearing  witness  to  the 
practical  talents  of  the  great  mind  that  originated  it.  So 
perfect  has  it  been  found,  that  notwithstanding  the  im 
mense  amount  of  money  disbursed  by  the  department 
since  he  was  at  its  head,  exceeding  two  hundred  millions 
of  dollars,  no  losses  of  any  importance  have  happened.* 
From  his  position  as  a  member  of  the  cabinet,  and 
the  necessity  of  devoting  his  whole  time  to  the  perform 
ance  of  his  official  duties,  Mr.  Calhoun  had  little  leisure, 
as  he  had  not  much  inclination,  for  participating  in  the 
strifes  and  contests  upon  the  various  political  questions 
agitated  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe. 
Though  averse  to  the  legislation  by  Congress  on  the 
subject  of  domestic  slavery,  he  approved  of  the  course 
of  Mr.  Monroe  in  regard  to  the  Missouri  compromise, 

*  From  1821  to  1836,  there  was  no  loss  on   an    expenditure  of  one 
hundred  millions. 


150  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1817-25, 

viewing  it  strictly  as  a  measure  of  conciliation  and 
peace  ;  but  his  opinions  on  the  subject  were  afterwards 
changed. 

The  tariff  question  was  again  presented  under  this 
administration.  The  act  of  1816  contemplated  a  re 
duction  of  duties  in  1819.  The  manufacturing  interest 
had  increased  to  the  proportions  and  stature  of  a  giant, 
but  like  the  plant  forced  in  a  hothouse,  it  still  required 
some  artificial  stimulus.  In  1818,  the  friends  of  a  high 
protective  tariff  beset  Congress  with  their  applications 
for  an  increase  of  duties.  The  profits  of  the  manufac 
turers  were  large,  but  like  the  daughters  of  the  horse 
leech,  they  continued  to  cry  "give!  give!"  In  1819 
they  succeeded  in  procuring  the  appointment  of  a  com 
mittee  on  manufactures.  This  was  a  decided  innova 
tion,  as  previous  to  that  time  thj  subject  had  been  en 
tirely  under  the  control  of  the  appropriate  revenue  com 
mittee.  Mr.  Monroe,  against  the  advice  of  Mr.  Calhoun, 
was  finally  induced  to  recommend  additional  encourage 
ment,  and  at  length  the  act  of  1824,  which  established 
an  average  rate  of  duties  of  about  thirty-eight  per  cent. 
•  was  passed.  This  bill  originated  with  the  iron  manu 
facturers  of  Pennsylvania  and  the  other  middle  states, 
who  had  recently  held  a  convention  at  Pittsburg,  but  it 
was  not  countenanced  or  approved  by  the  manufac 
turers  of  the  eastern  states.  The  members  of  the  South 
also  opposed  it  in  a  body.  Mr.  Calhoun  concurred  in 
sentiment,  with  his  political  friends  from  the  same  sec 
tion  of  the  country,  although  he  thought  that  injustice 
h.;d  been  done  to  the  iron  interest  in  Pennsylvania  by 
the  act  of  1816.* 

*  Speech  against  the  Force  Bill. 


1817-25.]  INTERNAL    IMPROVEMENTS.  151 

During  the  administration  of  Mr.  Monroe  the  sub 
ject  of  internal  improvements  was  likewise  again  agi 
tated.  Mr.  Calhoun  was,  in  the  main,  an  idle  but  not 
an  indifferent  spectator,  of  what  was  going  on  around 
him.  He  was  led  to  reflect  more  than  he  had  ever  be 
fore  done  on  the  power  of  Congress  under  the  constitu 
tion  to  construct  works  of  internal  improvement,  on 
account  of  the  continued  agitation  of  the  subject,  and 
the  impression  ultimately  made  upon  his  mind,  that  no 
such  power  existed,  was  clear  and  abiding.  He  did 
not  approve,  therefore,  of  Mr.  Monroe's  recommenda 
tions  in  regard  to  internal  improvements,  though  the 
opinions  advanced  in  the  special  message  of  May  4th, 
1822,  corresponded  essentially  with  those  which  he  him 
self  entertained. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

Presidential  Election  of  1824— Mr.  Calhoun  chosen  Vice-President— 
Character  as  Presiding  Officer — Refusal  to  leave  his  seat  when  a  tie 
vote  was  anticipated — Decision  in  regard  to  the  right  to  call  to  order 
— Opposition  to  the  Measures  of  Mr.  Adams — Reelection  of  Mr.  Cal 
houn — The  Tariff  Question — Matured  Opinions — Address. 

IT  is  very  common  for  a  certain  class  of  people  to 
lament  the  degeneracy  of  the  present  age, — as  com 
mon  as  it  is  for  another  class  to  maintain,  that 

"  Old  politicians  chime  on  wisdom  past, 
And  totter  on  in  blunders  to  the  last." 

The  one  are  true  conservative  bigots,  wedded  to 
ancient  forms  and  usages,  and  the  other  ultra  proges- 
sionists,  fond  of  overturning  for  the  sake  of  overturn 
ing,  and  never  so  well  pleased  as  when  the  destruction 
of  an  old  system  furnishes  the  opportunity  of  substitut 
ing  some  favorite  theory  of  their  own.  Human  insti 
tutions  are  by  no  means  perfect,  and  it  would,  perhaps, 
be  impossible  to  frame  a  law  or  a  constitution,  for  one 
generation,  which  should  be  construed  by  another,  un 
der  a  change  of  time  and  circumstances,  in  the  same 
manner.  One  abuse  is  very  apt  to  be  followed  by  a 
score,  and  innovation  is  the  prolific  mother  of  a  numer 
ous  brood.  Yet,  after  all,  he  has  studied  the  great  book 
of  human  nature  to  but  little  purpose,  who  imagines 
that  politicians  are,  in  the  main,  any  more  corrupt  at 


1825-32.]  PRESIDENTIAL    CANVASS.  153 

this  day  than  they  were  a  hundred  years  ago.  No 
class  of  men  are  more  liable  to  selfishness,  and  they 
are  not  more  influenced  by  that  feeling  now  than  they 
have  ever  been. 

If  we  examine  the  political  controversies  that  oc 
curred  in  the  early  history  of  our  country,  we  find 
them  presenting  the  same  characteristics  which  similar 
disputes  now  do.  Adams  and  Jefferson  were  abused 
and  calumniated,  with  as  much  zeal  and  bitterness,  by 
the  cotemporaneous  newspaper  press,  in  1800,  as  were 
Polk  and  Clay  in  1844.  Madison  and  Monroe,  too, 
were  treated  with  as  little  consideration  by  their  op 
ponents  as  were  the  younger  Adams,  General  Jackson, 
or  Mr.  Van  Buren.  The  contest  for  the  presidency  in 
1808,  or  that  in  1816,  was  as  earnest  and  animated, 
and  the  opposing  candidates  and  their  friends  as  anx 
ious,  as  was  the  case  in  1848;  'and  the  election  of  1840 
was  not  viewed  with  more  interest  by  politicians  than 
that  of  1824.  Latterly,  the  people  have  more  directly 
participated  in  the  presidential  elections,  because  the 
candidates  are  nominated  in  popular  conventions,  and 
the  electors  are  everywhere  chosen,  with  but  one  ex 
ception,  by  the  popular  suffrage ;  yet  it  is  very  doubt 
ful  whether  the  present  system  is  better  than  the  old. 
Congressional  caucuses  were  bad  enough,  but  it  is 
questionable,  whether  the  inflence  that  secures  the 
nomination  of  a  particular  candidate  by  a  national 
convention,  does  not  most  commonly  emanate  from 
the  political  coteries  at  Washington. 

From  the  peculiar  circumstances  attending  the  con 
test  for  the  presidency  in  1824,  it  was  characterized  by 
as  much,  if  not  more,  asperity  and  virulence,  than  were 

7* 


154  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1825-32. 

usual  on  such  occasions.  The  course  pursued  by  the 
federal  party  in  relation  to  the  war  of  1812  had  com 
pletely  alienated  from  them  the  affections  of  the  people, 
and  their  organization  was  almost  entirely  lost  during 
the  "  era  of  good  feeling"  introduced  by  Mr.  Monroe. 
The  party  as  a  party  split  into  fragments.  Many  still 
continued  to  adhere  to  their  old  principles,  but  the 
greater  number  henceforth  eschewed  them,  and  adopted, 
in  whole  or  in  part,  those  of  the  republican  school. 

Long  before  the  expiration  of  Mr.  Monroe's  second 
term,  it  was  quite  evident  to  every  observing  mind, 
that  the  federalists,  as  such,  were  scarcely  to  be  taken 
into  account  so  far  as  the  question  of  his  successor 
was  concerned.  None  but  a  republican  could  be 
elected — that  needed  no  demonstration.  But  among  the 
republicans  themselves,  there  was  a  great  diversity  of 
opinion.  Six  different  candidates  were  in  the  first 
place  proposed  by  their  respective  friends,  each  one  of 
whom  claimed  to  belong  to  the  republican  party.  In 
the  northern  and  eastern  states  John  Quincy  Adams 
was  the  favorite  ;  Henry  Clay  was  the  choice  of  Ken 
tucky,  Ohio,  and  Missouri ;  Andrew  Jackson  was  the 
most  popular  in  the  south-west,  and  the  southern  states 
generally  were  divided  between  him,  and  William  H. 
Crawford  ;  while  the  state  of  South  Carolina  presented 
the  name  of  one  of  her  most  distinguished  sons,  Wil 
liam  Lowndes,  and  Pennsylvania  that  of  another, 
Mr.  Calhoun. 

The  nomination  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  not  anticipated 
by  himself;  neither  was  Mr.  Lowndes  aware  of  the 
kind  washes  and  intentions  of  his  friends  till  his  name 
was  regularly  proposed.  Between  the  two  there  had 


1825-32.]  PRESIDENTIAL    CANVASS.  155 

long  existed  a  warm  personal  friendship,  and  as  soon  as 
Mr.  Calhoun  heard  of  his  nomination,  he  called  on  Mr. 
Lovvndes,  and  assured  him  that  it  had  been  made  with 
out  his  procurement  or  solicitation,  and  that  he  should 
much  regret  to  have  the  circumstance  of  their  being 
opposing  candidates  produce  any  change  in  their  private 
relations.  His  friendly  feelings  were  cordially  recipro 
cated  by  Mr.  Lowndes,  and  the  canvass  would  un 
doubtedly  have  proceeded  to  its  close  without  impairing 
their  mutual  esteem,  had  not  the  untimely  death  of  Mr. 
Lowndes.  in  October,  1822,  forever  removed  him  from 
the  political  arena.  The  relations  of  Mr.  Calhoun  with 
all  the  other  candidates,  except  Mr.  Crawford,  were  like 
wise  friendly.  In  1816,  Mr.  Calhoun  had  preferred  Mr. 
Monroe  to  Mr.  Crawford,  and  though  opposed  to  the 
plan  of  holding  a  congressional  caucus,  he  attended  that 
which  was  held  and  supported  the  candidate  whom  he 
preferred.  This  occasioned  some  slight  bitterness  of 
feeling,  which  was  heightened  by  the  continued  oppo 
sition  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  Mr.  Crawford  when  the  latter 
was  a  second  time  brought  forward,  as  the  successor  to 
Mr.  Monroe. 

It  is  unnecessary,  however,  to  recapitulate  all  the  cir 
cumstances  attending  the  presidential  election  in  1824. 
The  friends  of  Jackson,  Adams,  Clay,  and  Calhoun,  who 
constituted  a  majority  of  the  republican  members  of 
Congress,  refused  to  go  into  a  caucus,  as  is  well  known, 
whereupon  the  minority  met  and  nominated  Mr.  Craw 
ford.  As  between  the  other  candidates,  Mr.  Calhoun 
preferred  General  Jackson ;  and  as  it  was  likely  that  a 
warm  contest  would  spring  up  between  their  respective 


156  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1825-32. 

friends  in  Pennsylvania,  the  name  of  the  former  was 
finally  withdrawn  in  compliance  with  his  wishes. 

Mr.  Calhoun  being  no  longer  a  candidate  for  the 
presidential  office,  he  was  instantly  taken  up  by  the 
friends  of  General  Jackson  and  Mr.  Adams  as  their 
candidate  for  the  vice-presidency.  He  also  received 
the  support  of  a  portion  of  the  friends  of  Mr.  Clay,  for 
the  same  office.  South  Carolina  gave  her  electoral 
vote  to  General  Jackson  and  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  her 
members  were  unanimous  in  their  preference  of  the 
former  over  Mr.  Adams,  the  successful  candidate,  when 
the  question  came  before  the  House  of  Representatives 
for  their  decision.  Mr.  Calhoun  himself  was  chosen 
vice-president  by  the  colleges, — he  receiving  one  hun 
dred  and  eighty- two  of  the  two  hundred  and  sixty- one 
electoral  votes. 

On  the  4th  day  of  March,  1825,  Mr.  Calhoun  took  his 
seat  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  as  its  presiding 
officer.  He  left  the  war  department,  not  as  he  found  it, 
in  confusion  and  disorder,  but  in  every  branch  regulari 
ty  and  order  had  been  restored  or  introduced.  The 
great  energy  and  vigor  of  his  mind,  as  well  as  the  happy 
combination  of  his  administrative  talents,  had  been  dis 
played  in  its  management ;  and  so  apparent  were  the 
importance  and  appropriateness  of  the  reforms  which 
he  had  originated,  that  General  Bernard,  the  chief  of  the 
Corps  of  Engineers  wfiile  Mr.  Calhoun  was  secretary 
of  war,  and  a  favorite  officer  of  Napoleon,  often  com 
pared  him  to  that  great  man.  His  course,  too,  was  cal 
culated  to  gain  the  respect,  while  he  did  not  lose  the 
esteem,  of  the  officers  of  the  army,  for  he  did  away  en 
tirely  with  the  system  of  favoritism  which  had  been 


1825-32.]       CHARACTER    AS    PRESIDING    OFFICER.  157 

tolerated  from  mistaken  notions  of  expediency,  and 
left  merit  to  make  its  own  way,  without  unduly  forcing 
it,  or  obstructing  it  by  checks  and  restraints. 

As  vice-president,  the  duties  of  Mr.  Calhoun  were 
limited  and  not  often  arduous.  He  always  appeared  in 
his  seat  early  in  the  session  and  remained  there  till 
shortly  before  its  close.  He  was  prompt  and  punctual, 
regular  in  his  attendance,  and  never  remiss  in  his  duties. 
He  was  simple  yet  dignified ;  urbane  and  courteous  ; 
careful  himself  to  observe  the  rules  of  decorum,  and  to 
exact  the  same  from  others.  He  contributed  a  great 
deal  to  raise  the  dignity  of  the  Senate  and  to  elevate 
its  character.  It  had  been  usual  for  senators  when  re 
ferring  to  each  other,  and  for  the  chair  in  putting  ques 
tions,  to  use  the  term  "  gentlemen."  Mr.  Calhoun  sub 
stituted  for  this  the  more  appropriate  and  dignified  term 
of  "  senators,"  which  has  ever  since  been  preserved. 
He  was  never  absent  from  his  seat  when  a  tie  vote  on 
any  important  question  \vas  anticipated.  Occasions  of 
this  kind  were  not  of  frequent  occurrence  ;  but  one,  in 
particular,  deserves  to  be  mentioned.  When  the  tariff 
bill  of  1828  was  pending  before  the  Senate,  Mr.  Calhoun 
was  the  republican  candidate  for  vice-president  on  the 
same  ticket  with  General  Jackson,  and  as  many  of  the 
friends  of  the  latter  in  the  northern  states  were  favorable 
to  the  bill,  it  was  feared  that  the  supporters  of  Mr. 
Adams  would,  as  an  electioneering  trick,  so  arrange 
matters  in  the  Senate  as  to  compel  Mr.  Calhoun  to  give 
the  casting  vote  against  the  bill,  in  accordance  with  his 
well-known  opinions.  He  \vas  warmly  urged,  there 
fore,  to  leave  his  seat,  in  the  event  of  a  tie  vote,  be 
cause,  it  was  said,  this  would  be  in  fact  a  defeat  of  the 


158  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1825-32. 

bill,  and  he  would  avoid  prejudicing  the  election  of  the 
republican  candidates.  But  it  was  not  in  his  nature  to 
shrink  from  any  responsibility, — and  the  duty  or  power 
of  giving  the  casting  vote  he  regarded  as  one  of  great 
solemnity.  It  was  one  of  the  checks  and  balances  de 
vised  by  the  wisdom  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution, 
and  he  was  the  last  man  to  underrate  its  importance. 
He  informed  his  friends,  therefore,  that  he  could  not 
consistently  vacate  his  seat,  but  that  they  need  have 
no  fears  in  regard  to  the  election  of  General  Jackson, 
for,  if  he  was  obliged  to  give  the  casting  vote  against 
the  bill,  as  he  certainly  should  do  if  the  emergency  con 
templated  by  the  constitution  occurred,  his  name  would 
be  promptly  withdrawn  from  the  ticket.  This  was  not 
rendered  necessary  as  the  bill  was  passed  by  a  majority 
vote,  but  Mr.  Calhoun  is  none  the  less  entitled  to  credit 
for  resisting  the  temptations  which  would  have  allured 
him  from  the  path  of  duty. 

Mr.  Calhoun  also  signalized  his  term  of  service  as 
vice-president  by  the  stand  he  took  in  defence  of  the 
rights  of  the  Senate  against  his  own  power.  At  the 
outset  of  his  administration,  Mr.  Adams  encountered 
a  most  violent  opposition  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of 
General  Jackson,  Mr.  Crawford,  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  a 
part  of  the  former  supporters  of  Mr.  Clay.  The 
Panama  question,  involving  the  principle  contended 
for  by  the  federalists  during  the  discussions  on  Jay's 
treaty  that  the  treaty-making  power  was  supreme,  pre 
sented  the  first  opportunity  for  the  trial  of  strength 
in  Congress.  Party  feeling  was  high,  and  the  debates 
in  both  Houses  were  unusually  animated.  Mr.  Ran 
dolph,  then  a  senator  from  Virginia,  was  extremely 


1825-32.]  RULES    OP    ORDER.  159 

bitter  in  his  attacks  upon  the  administration,  and  not 
contenting  himself— as  he  never  could — with  discussing 
the  merits  of  the  question  at  issue,  he  condemned  the 
motives  of  the  president  and  the  cabinet  in  the  strongest 
terms,  and  denounced  the  Secretary  of  State,  (Mr.  Clay) 
in  particular,  for  his  agency  in  producing  the  election 
of  Mr.  Adams. 

The  friends  of  the  administration  writhed  under 
these  attacks,  but  instead  of  retorting  as  they  had  been 
provoked  to  do,  they  censured  the  vice-president  for 
not  calling  Mr.  Randolph  to  order  for  words  spoken  in 
debate.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  opposed  to  the  Panama 
mission,  in  toto,  and  to  the  federal  doctrines  maintained 
by  the  friends  of  Mr.  Adams,  but  no  motives  of  this 
kind  influenced  him  in  deciding  that  he  did  not  possess 
the  power  to  call  to  order.  His  decision  was  upheld 
by  Mr.  Me  Lane,  Mr.  Van  Buren,  Mr.  Macon,  Mr. 
Tazewell  and  Mr.  Tyler,  though  some  of  them  were 
of  opinion  that  the  power  ought  to  be  given  to  the 
vice-president,  as  was  in  fact  afterward  done.  But 
Mr.  Adams  himself  entered  the  lists  as  his  own  cham 
pion,  and  attacked  the  decision  through  the  columns  of 
the  National  Intelligencer  over  the  signature  of  Patrick 
Henry.  Mr.  Calhoun  replied  over  the  signature  of 
Onslow  in  two  numbers,  both  of  which  were  replete 
with  sound  arguments  and  convincing  illustrations, 
and,  taken  together,  constituted  a  complete  justification 
of  his  course. 

As  Mr.  Calhoun  was  opposed  to  the  Panama  mission, 
so  he  did  not  regard  with  favor  the  other  leading  meas 
ures  of  the  administration  of  Mr.  Adams — a  high  tariff 
for  protection  and  a  general  system  of  improvements. 


160  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1825-32. 

The  mission  question  having  been  settled,  the  "  Ameri 
can  System,"  of  which  the  protective  tariff  and  in 
ternal  improvement  system  were  features,  in  one  or 
other  of  its  phases,  was  agitated  during  the  whole  term 
of  Mr.  Adams ;  nor  was  it  even  temporarily  disposed 
of  till  the  Maysville  veto,  and  the  passage  of  the  com 
promise  act. 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  reflected  vice-president  in  1828, 
as  the  republican  candidate  on  the  same  ticket  with 
General  Jackson.  His  opponent  was  Richard  Rush 
of  Pennyslvania,  who  received  only  eighty-three  of  the 
electoral  votes  while  more  than  double  that  number 
were  given  to  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  republican  friends 
of  Mr.  Crawford  in  Georgia,  however,  supported  Wil 
liam  Smith  of  South  Carolina,  and  gave  him  the  vote 
of  the  state.- 

While  Mr.  Calhoun  filled  the  office  of  vice-president 
he  had  abundant  leisure  for  study  and  reflection,  with 
out  encroaching  on  the  time  necessarily  devoted  to  his 
duties.  His  opinions  upon  the  theory  of  the  govern 
ment,  the  true  construction  of  the  constitution,  and 
political  questions  generally,  underwent  a  thorough 
examination  and  revision,  and,  with  the  exception  of 
some  slight  changes  or  modifications  subsequently  made, 
were  now  fully  matured.  In  regard  to  the  tariff,  he 
came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  general  government 
had  no  power  to  collect  any  more  revenue  than  was 
sufficient  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  government 
economically  administered,  and  that  in  anticipation  of 
the  payment  of  the  public  debt  there  ought  to  be  a 
gradual  reduction  of  the  duties  to  the  revenue  standard. 
Having  come  to  this  conclusion,  he  was  then  led  to 


I831.J   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    161 

consider  what  remedy  was  provided,  in  case  the  op 
posite  doctrines  prevailed,  as  he  had  but  too  much 
reason  to  fear  they  would.  These  can  be  expressed 
in  no  better  manner  than  in  the  language  of  his  address 
to  the  people  of  South  Carolina  dated  at  Fort  Hill, 
July  26th,  1831,  which  is  here  subjoined: 

ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  SOUTH  CAROLINA. 

The  question  of  the  relation  which  the  States  and  General  Govern 
ment  bear  to  each  other  is  not  one  of  recent  origin.  From  the  com 
mencement  of  our  system,  it  has  divided  public  sentiment.  Even  in 
the  Convention,  while  the  Constitution  was  struggling  into  existence, 
there  were  two  parties  as  to  what  this  relation  should  be,  whose  differ 
ent  sentiments  constituted  no  small  impediment  in  forming  that  instru 
ment.  After  the  General  Government  went  into  operation,  experience 
goon  proved  that  the  question  had  not  terminated  with  the  labors  of 
the  Convention.  The  great  struggle  that  preceded  the  political  revolu 
tion  of  1801,  which  brought  Mr.  Jefferson  into  power,  turned  essentially 
on  it,  and  the  doctrines  and  arguments  on  both  sides  were  embodied  and 
ably  sustained:  on  the  one,  in  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky  Resolutions, 
and  the  Report  to  the  Virginia  Legislature ;  and  on  the  other,  in  the 
replies  of  the  Legislature  of  Massachusetts  and  some  of  the  other 
states.  These  resolutions  and  this  report,  with  the  decision  of  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  Pennsylvania  about  the  same  time  (particularly  in  the 
case  of  Cobbett,  delivered  by  Chief-justice  M'Kean,  and  concurred  in 
by  the  whole  bench),  contain  what  I  believe  to  be  the  true  doctrine  on 
this  important  subject.  I  refer  to  them  in  order  to  avoid  the  necessity 
of  presenting  my  views,  with  the  reasons  in  support  of  them,  in  detail. 

As  my  object  is  simply  to  state  my  opinions,  I  might  pause  with 
this  reference  to  documents  that  so  fully  and  ably  state  all  the  points 
immediately  connected  with  this  deeply-important  subject ;  but  as 
there  are  many  who  may  not  have  the  opportunity  or  leisure  to  refer 
to  them,  and  as  it  is  possible,  however  clear  they  may  be,  that  differ 
ent  persons  may  place  different  interpretations  on  their  meaning,  I 
will,  in  order  that  my  sentiments  may  be  fully  known,  and  to  avoid  all 
ambiguity,  proceed  to  state  summarily  the  doctrines  which  I  conceive 
they  embrace. 


162  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

The  great  and  leading  principle  is,  that  the  General  Government 
emanated  from  the  people  of  the  several  states,  forming  distinct  politi 
cal  communities,  and  acting  in  their  separate  and  sovereign  capacity, 
and  not  from  all  of  the  people  forming  one  aggregate  political  com 
munity  ;  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is,  in  fact,  a  com 
pact,  to  which  each  state  is  a  party,  in  the  character  already  described ; 
and  that  several  states,  or  parties,  have  a  right  to  judge  of  its  infrac 
tions  ;  and  in  case  of  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of 
power  not  delegated,  they  have  the  right,  in  the  last  resort,  to  use  the 
language  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  "  to  interpose  for  arresting  the 
progress  of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining,  within  their  respective  limits, 
the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  appertaining  to  them."  This  right 
of  interposition,  thus  solemnly  asserted  by  the  State  of  Virginia,  be  it 
called  what  it  may — State-right,  veto,  nullification,  or  by  any  other 
name — I  conceive  to  be  the  fundamental  principle  of  our  system,  rest 
ing  on  facts  historically  as  certain  as  our  revolution  itself,  and  deduc 
tions  as  simple  and  demonstrative  as  that  of  any  political  or  moral 
truth  whatever ;  and  I  firmly  believe  that  on  its  recognition  depend 
the  stability  and  safety  of  our  political  institutions. 

I  am  not  ignorant  that  those  opposed  to  the  doctrine  have  always, 
now  and  formerly,  regarded  it  in  a  very  different  light,  as  anarchical 
and  revolutionary.  Could  I  believe  such,  in  fact,  to  be  its  tendency, 
to  me  it  would  be  no  recommendation.  I  yield  to  none,  I  trust,  in  a 
deep  and  sincere  attachment  to  our  political  institutions  and  the  union 
of  these  states.  I  never  breathed  an  opposite  sentiment ;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  I  have  ever  considered  them  the  great  instruments  of  pre 
serving  our  liberty,  and  promoting  the  happiness  of  ourselves  and  our 
posterity ;  and  next  to  these  I  have  ever  held  them  most  dear.  Nearly 
half  my  life  has  been  passed  in  the  service  of  the  Union,  and  whatever 
public  reputation  I  have  acquired  is  indissolubly  identified  with  it. 
To  be  too  national  has,  indeed,  been  considered  by  many,  even  of  my 
friends,  to  be  my  greatest  political  fault.  With  these  strong  feelings 
of  attachment,  I  have  examined,  with  the  utmost  care,  the  bearing  of 
the  doctrine  in  question  ;  and,  so  far  from  anarchical  or  revolutionary, 
I  solemnly  believe  it  to  be  the  only  solid  foundation  of  our  system,  and 
of  the  Union  itself;  and  that  the  opposite  doctrine,  which  denies  to 
the  states  the  right  of  protecting  their  reserved  powers,  and  which 
would  vest  in  the  General  Government  (it  matters  not  through  what 
department)  the  right  of  determining,  exclusively  and  finally,  tho 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    163 

powers  delegated  to  it,  is  incompatible  with  the  sovereignty  of  the 
states,  and  of  the  Constitution  itself,  considered  as  the  basis  of  a 
Federal  Union.  As  strong  as  this  language  is,  it  is  not  stronger  than 
that  used  by  the  illustrious  Jefferson,  who  said  to  give  to  the  General 
Government  the  final  and  exclusive  right  to  judge  of  its  powers,  is  to 
make  "  its  discretion,  and  not  the  Constitution,  the  measure  of  its  powers  ;" 
and  that,  "  in  all  cases  of  compact  between  parties  having  no  common 
judge,  each  party  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well  of  the  in 
fraction  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress"  Language  cannot  be 
more  explicit,  nor  can  higher  authority  be  adduced. 

That  different  opinions  are  entertained  on  this  subject,  I  consider  but 
as  an  additional  evidence  of  the  great  diversity  of  the  human  intellect. 
Had  not  able,  experienced,  and  patriotic  individuals,  for  whom  I  have 
the  highest  respect,  taken  different  views,  I  would  have  thought  the 
right  too  clear  to  admit  of  doubt ;  but  I  am  taught  by  this,  as  well  as 
by  many  similar  instances,  to  treat  with  deference  opinions  differing 
from  my  own.  The  error  may,  possibly,  be  with  me ;  but  if  so,  I  can 
only  say  that,  after  the  most  mature  and  conscientious  examination,  I 
have  not  been  able  to  detect  it.  But,  with  all  proper  deference,  I  must 
think  that  theirs  is  the  error  who  deny  what  seems  to  be  an  essential 
attribute  of  the  conceded  sovereignty  of  the  states,  and  who  attribute 
to  the  General  Government  a  right  utterly  incompatible  with  what  all 
acknowledge  to  be  its  limited  and  restricted  character  :  an  error  origi 
nating  principally,  as  I  must  think,  in  not  duly  reflecting  on  the  nature 
of  our  institutions,  and  on  what  constitutes  the  only  rational  object  of 
all  political  constitutions.  . 

It  has  been  well  said  by  one  of  the  most  sagacious  men  of  antiquity, 
that  the  object  of  a  constitution  is  to  restrain  the  government,  as  that 
of  laws  is  to  restrain  individuals.  The  remark  is  correct;  nor  if  it  less 
true  where  the  government  is  vested  in  a  majority  than  where  it  is  in 
a  single  or  a  few  individuals — in  a  republic,  than  a  monarchy  or  aristoc 
racy.  No  one  can  have  a  higher  respect  for  the  maxim  that  the  ma 
jority  ought  to  govern  than  I  have,  taken  in  its  proper  sense,  subject 
to  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  Constitution,  and  confined  to  sub 
jects  in  which  every  portion  of  the  community  have  similar  interests ; 
but  it  is  a  great  error  to  suppose,  as  many  do,  that  the  right  of  a  ma 
jority  to  govern  is  a  natural  and  not  a  conventional  right,  and  therefore 
absolute  and  unlimited.  By  nature  every  individual  has  the  right  to 
govern  himself ;  and  governments,  whether  founded  on  majorities  or 


164  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

minorities,  must  derive  their  right  from  the  assent,  expressed  or  im 
plied,  of  the  governed,  and  be  subject  to  such  limitations  as  they  maj 
impose.  Where  the  interests  are  the  same,  that  is,  -where  the  lawr 
that  may  benefit  one  will  benefit  all,  or  the  reverse,  it  is  just  and  propel 
to  place  them  under  the  control  of  the  majority  ;  but  where  they  an 
dissimilar,  so  that  the  law  that  may  benefit  one  portion  may  be  ruin 
ous  to  another,  it  would  be,  on  the  contrary,  unjust  and  absurd  to  sub 
feet  them  to  its  will ;  and  such  I  conceive  to  be  the  theory  on  which 
our  Constitution  rests. 

That  such  dissimilarity  of  interests  may  exist,  it  is  impossible  to 
doubt.  They  are  to  be  found  in  every  community,  in  a  greater  or  less 
degree,  however  small  or  homogeneous,  and  they  constitute  every 
where  the  great  difficulty  of  forming  and  preserving  free  institutions. 
To  guard  against  the  unequal  action  of  the  laws,  when  applied  to  dis 
similar  and  opposing  interests,  is,  in  fact,  what  mainly  renders  a  con 
stitution  indispensable;  to  overlook  which,  in  reasoning  on  our  Consti 
tution,  would  be  to  omit  the  principal  element  by  which  to  determine 
its  character.  "Were  there  no  contrariety  of  interests,  nothing  would 
be  more  simple  and  easy  than  to  form  and  preserve  free  institutions. 
The  right  of  suffrage  alone  would  be  a  sufficient  guarantee.  It  is  the 
conflict  of  opposing  interests  which  renders  it  the  most  difficult  work 
of  man. 

Where  the  diversity  of  interests  exists  in  separate  and  distinct 
classes  of  the  community,  as  is  the  case  in  England,  and  was  formerly 
the  case  in  Sparta,  Rome,  and  most  of  the  free  states  of  antiquity,  the 
rational  constitutional  provision  is  that  each  should  be  represented  in 
the  government,  as  a  separate  estate,  with  a  distinct  voice,  and  a  nega 
tive  on  the  acts  of  its  co-estates,  in  order  to  check  their  encroachments. 
In  England  the  Constitution  has  assumed  expressly  this  form,  while 
in  the  governments  of  Sparta  and  Rome  the  same  thing  was  effected 
under  different,  but  not  much  less  efficacious  forms.  The  perfection  of 
their  organization,  in  this  particular,  was  that  which  gave  to  the  consti 
tutions  of  these  renowned  states  all  their  celebrity,  which  secured  their 
liberty  for  so  many  centuries,  and  raised  them  to  so  great  a  height  of 
power  and  prosperity.  Indeed,  a  constitutional  provision  giving  to  the 
great  and  separate  interests  of  the  community  the  right  of  self-protec 
tion,  must  appear,  to  those  who  will  duly  reflect  on  the  subject,  not  less 
essential  to  the  preservation  of  liberty  than  the  right  of  suffrage  itself. 
They,  in  faci>  nave  a  common  object,  to  effect  which  the  one  is  as  neces- 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    165 

sary  as  the  other  to  secure  responsibility :  that  is,  that  those  who  make 
and  execute  the  laws  should  be  accountable  to  those  on  whom  the  laws  in 
reality  operate — the  only  solid  and  durable  foundation  of  liberty.  If, 
without  the  right  of  suffrage,  our  rulers  would  oppress  us,  so,  without 
the  right  of  self  protection,  the  major  would  equally  oppress  the  minor 
interests  of  the  community.  The  absence  of  the  former  would  make 
the  governed  the  slaves  of  the  rulers,  and  of  the  latter,  the  feebler  in 
terests,  the  victim  of  the  stronger. 

Happily  for  us,  we  have  no  artificial  and  separate  classes  of  society. 
We  have  wisely  exploded  all  such  distinctions ;  but  we  are  not,  on  that 
account,  exempt  from  all  contrariety  of  interests,  as  the  present  dis 
tracted  and  dangerous  condition  of  our  country,  unfortunately,  but  too 
clearly  proves.  With  us  they  are  almost  exclusively  geographical,  result 
ing  mainly  from  difference  of  climate,  soil,  situation,  industry,  and  produc 
tion,  but  are  not.  therefore,  less  necessary  to  be  protected  by  an  ade 
quate  constitutional  provision  than  where  the  distinct  interests  exist  in 
separate  classes.  The  necessity  is,  in  truth,  greater,  as  such  separate 
and  dissimilar  geographical  interests  are  more  liable  to  come  into  con 
flict,  and  more  dangerous,  when  in  that  state,  than  those  of  any  other 
description :  so  much  so,  that  ours  is  the  first  instance  on  record  where 
they  have  not  formed,  in  an  extensive  territory,  separate  and  indepen 
dent  communities,  or  subjected  the  whole  to  despotic  sway.  That  such 
may  not  be  our  unhappy  fate  also,  must  be  the  sincere  prayer  of  every 
lover  of  his  countrv. 

So  numerous  and  diversified  are  the  interests  of  our  country,  that 
they  could  not  be  fairly  represented  in  a  single  government,  organized 
so  as  to  give  to  each  great  and  leading  interest  a  separate  and  distinct 
voice,  as  in  governments  to  which  I  have  referred.  A  plan  was 
adopted  better  suited  to  our  situation,  but  perfectly  novel  in  its  char 
acter.  The  powers  of  the  government  were  divided,  not  as  heretofore, 
in  reference  to  classes,  but  geographically.  One  General  Government 
was  formed  for  the  whole,  to  which  was  delegated  all  the  powers  sup 
posed  to  be  necessary  to  regulate  the  interests  common  to  all  the 
states,  leaving  others  subject  to  the  separate  control  of  the  states,  being, 
from  their  local  and  peculiar  character,  such  that  they  could  not  be 
subject  to  the  will  of  a  majority  of  the  whole  Union,  without  the  cer 
tain  hazard  of  injustice  and  oppression.  It  was  thus  that  the  interests 
of  the  whole  were  subjected,  as  they  ought  to  be,  to  the  will  of  the 
whole,  while  the  peculiar  and  local  interests  were  left  under  the  con- 


166  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831 

trol  of  the  states  separately,  to  whose  custody  only  they  could  be  safeb 
confided.  This  distribution  of  power,  settled  solemnly  by  a  constitu 
tional  compact,  to  which  all  the  states  are  parties,,  constitutes  th< 
peculiar  character  and  excellence  of  our  political  system.  It  is  trulj 
and  emphatically  American,  without  example  or  parallel. 

To  realize  its  perfection,  we  must  view  the  General  Government  and 
those  of  the  states  as  a  whole,  each  in  its  proper  sphere  independent ; 
each  perfectly  adapted  to  its  respective  objects ;  the  states  acting  sepa 
rately,  representing  and  protecting  the  local  and  peculiar  interests  ; 
acting  jointly  through  one  General  Government,  with  the  weight  re 
spectively  assigned  to  each  by  the  Constitution,  representing  and  pro 
tecting  the  interest  of  the  whole,  and  thus  perfecting,  by  an  admirable 
but  simple  arrangement,  the  great  principle  of  representation  and 
responsibility,  without  which  no  government  can  be  free  or  just.  To 
preserve  this  sacred  distribution  as  originally  settled,  by  coercing  each 
to  move  in  its  prescribed  orb,  is  the  great  and  difficult  problem,  on  the 
solution  of  which  the  duration  of  our  Constitution,  of  our  Union,  and, 
in  all  probability,  our  liberty  depends.  How  is  this  to  be  effected  ? 

The  question  is  new  when  applied  to  our  peculiar  political  organiza 
tion,  where  the  separate  and  conflicting  interests  of  society  are  repre 
sented  by  distinct  but  connected  governments  ;  but  it  is,  in  reality,  an 
old  question  under  a  new  form,  long  since  perfectly  solved.  Whenever 
separate  and  dissimilar  interests  have  been  separately  represented  in 
any  government ;  whenever  the  sovereign  power  has  been  divided  in  its 
exercise,  the  experience  and  wisdom  of  ages  have  devised  but  one  mode 
by  which  such  political  organization  can  be  preserved — the  mode  adopt 
ed  in  England,  and  by  all  governments,  ancient  and  modern,  blessed 
with  constitutions  deserving  to  be  called  free — to  give  to  each  co-estate 
the  right  to  judge  of  its  powers,  with  a  negative  or  veto  on  the  acts  of 
the  others,  in  order  to  protect  against  encroachments  the  interests  it 
particularly  represents:  a  principle  which  all  of  our  Constitutions 
recognize  in  the  distribution  of  power  among  their  respective  depart 
ments,  as  essential  to  maintain  the  independence  of  each,  but  which  to 
all  who  will  duly  reflect  on  the  subject,  must  appear  far  more  essential, 
for  the  same  object,  in  that  great  and  fundamental  distribution  of  powers 
between  the  General  and  State  Governments.  So  essential  is  the  prin 
ciple,  that  to  withhold  the  right  from  either,  where  the  sovereign  power 
is  divided,  is,  in  fact,  to  annul  the  division  itself,  and  to  consolidate  in 
the  one  left  in  the  exclusive  possession  of  the  right  all  powers  of  govern 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    167 

ment ;  for  it  is  not  possible  to  distinguish,  practically,  between  a  govern 
ment  having  all  power,  and  one  having  the  right  to  take  what  powers 
it  pleases.  Nor  does  it  in  the  least  vary  the  principle,  whether  the 
distribution  of  power  be  between  co-estates,  as  in  England,  or  between 
distinctly  organized  but  connected  governments,  as  with  us.  The  rea 
son  is  the  same  in  both  cases,  while  the  necessity  is  greater  in  our  case, 
as  the  danger  of  conflict  is  greater  where  the  interests  of  a  society  are 
divided  geographically  than  in  any  other,  as  has  already  been  shown. 

These  truths  do  seem  to  me  to  be  incontrovertible ;  and  I  am  at  a 
loss  to  understand  how  any  one,  who  has  maturely  reflected  on  the  na 
ture  of  our  institutions,  or  who  has  read  history  or  studied  the  principles 
of  free  government  to  any  purpose,  can  call  them  in  question.  The  ex 
planation  must,  it  appears  to  me,  be  sought  in  the  fact  that  in  every  free 
state  there  are  those  who  look  more  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining 
power  than  guarding  against  its  abuses.  I  do  not  intend  reproach,  but 
simply  to  state  a  fact  apparently  necessary  to  explain  the  contrariety 
of  opinions  among  the  intelligent,  where  the  abstract  consideration  of  the 
subject  would  seem  scarcely  to  admit  of  doubt.  If  such  be  the  true 
cause,  I  must  think  the  fear  of  weakening  the  government  too  much  in 
this  case  to  be  in  a  great  measure  unfounded,  or,  at  least,  that  the  dan 
ger  is  much  less  from  that  than  the  opposite  side.  I  do  not  deny  that  a 
power  of  so  high  a  nature  may  be  abused  by  a  state,  but  when  I  reflect 
that  the  states  unanimously  called  the  General  Government  into  exist 
ence  with  all  its  powers,  which  they  freely  delegated  on  their  part, 
under  the  conviction  that  their  common  peace,  safety,  and  prosperity 
required  it ;  that  they  are  bound  together  by  a  common  origin,  and  the 
recollection  of  common  suffering  and  common  triumph  in  the  great  and 
splendid  achievement  of  their  independence;  and  that  the  strongest 
feelings  of  our  nature,  and  among  them  the  love  of  national  power  and 
distinction,  are  on  the  side  of  the  Union,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  the 
fear  which  would  strip  the  states  of  their  sovereignty,  and  degrade  them, 
in  fact,  to  mere  dependent  corporations,  lest  they  should  abuse  a  right  in 
dispensable  to  the  peaceable  protection  of  those  interests  which  they 
reserved  under  their  own  peculiar  guardianship  when  they  created  the 
General  Government,  is  unnatural  and  unreasonable.  If  those  who 
voluntarily  created  the  system  cannot  be  trusted  to  preserve  it,  who 
can? 

So  far  from  extreme  danger,  I  hold  that  there  never  was  a  free  state 
in  which  this  great  conservative  principle,  indispensable  to  all,  waa  ever 


168  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

BO  safely  lodged.  In  others,  when  the  co-estates  representing  the  dis 
similar  and  conflicting  interests  of  the  community  came  into  contact,  the 
only  alternative  was  compromise,  submission,  or  force.  Not  so  in  ours. 
Should  the  General  Government  and  a  state  come  into  conflict,  we  have 
a  higher  remedy;  the  power  which  called  the  General  Government  into 
existence,  which  gave  it  all  its  authority,  and  can  enlarge,  contract,  or 
abolish  its  powers  at  its  pleasure,  may  be  invoked.  The  states  them 
selves  may  be  appealed  to,  three  fourths  of  which,  in  fact,  form  a  power 
whose  decrees  are  the  Constitution  itself,  and  whose  voice  can  silence  all 
discontent.  The  utmost  extent,  then,  of  the  power  is,  that  a  state  act 
ing  in  its  sovereign  capacity,  as  one  of  the  parties  to  the  const itutional 
compact,  may  compel  the  government,  created  by  that  compact,  to  sub 
mit  a  question  touching  its  infraction  to  the  parties  who  created  it ;  to 
avoid  the  supposed  dangers  of  which  it  is  proposed  to  resort  to  the 
novel,  the  hazardous,  and,  I  must  add,  fatal  project  of  giving  to  the 
General  Government  the  sole  and  filial  right  of  interpreting  the  Consti^ 
tution,  thereby  reversing  the  whole  system,  making  that  instrument  the 
creature  of  its  will  instead  of  a  rule  of  action  impressed  on  it  at  its 
creation,  and  annihilating,  in  fact,  the  authority  which  imposed  it,  and 
from  which  the  government  itself  derives  its  existence. 

That  such  would  be  the  result,  were  the  right  in  question  vested  in 
the  legislative  or  executive  branch  of  the  government,  is  conceded  by 
all.  No  one  has  been  so  hardy  as  to  assert  that  Congress  or  the  Presi 
dent  ought  to  have  the  right,  or  deny  that,  if  vested  finally  and  exclu 
sively  in  either,  the  consequences  which  I  have  stated  would  necessari 
ly  follow  :  but  its  advocates  have  been  reconciled  to  the  doctrine,  on  the 
supposition  that  there  is  one  department  of  the  General  Government 
which,  from  its  peculiar  organization,  affords  an  independent  tribunal 
through  which  the  government  may  exercise  the  high  authority  which  13 
the  subject  of  consideration,  with  perfect  safety  to  all. 

I  yield,  I  trust,  to  few  in  my  attachment  to  the  judiciary  department, 
I  am  fully  sensible  of  its  importance,  and  would  maintain  it  to  the  fullest 
extent  in  its  constitutional  powers  and  independence ;  but  it  is  impossi 
ble  for  me  to  believe  that  it  was  ever  intended  by  the  Constitution  that 
it  should  exercise  the  power  in  question,  or  that  it  is  competent  to  do  so ; 
and,  if  it  were,  that  it  would  be  a  safe  depositary  of  the  power. 

Its  powers  are  judicial,  and  not  political,  acd  are  expressly  confined 
by  the  Constitution  "  to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity  arising  under  thia 
Constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  the  treaties  nrade>  car 


1831. J   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.     169 

which  shall  be  made,  under  its  authority  ;"  and  which  I  have  high  au 
thority  in  asserting  excludes  political  questions,  and  comprehends  those 
only  where  there  are  parties  amenable  to  the  process  of  the  court* 
Nor  is  its  incompetency  less  clear  than  its  want  of  constitutional  authori 
ty.  There  may  be  many,  and  the  most  dangerous  infractions  on  the 
part  of  Congress,  of  which,  it  is  conceded  by  all,  the  court,  as  a  judicial 
tribunal,  cannot,  from  its  nature,  take  cognizance.  The  tariff  itself  is  a 
strong  case  in  point;  and  the  reason  applies  equally  to  all  others  where 
Congress  perverts  a  power  from  an  object  intended  to  one  not  intended, 
the  most  insidious  and  dangerous  of  all  infractions;  and  which  may  be 
extended  to  all  its  powers,  more  especially  to  the  taxing  and  appropria 
ting.  But  supposing  it  competent  to  take  cognizance  of  all  infractions 
of  every  description,  the  insuperable  objection  still  remains,  that  it  would 
not  be  a  safe  tribunal  to  exercise  the  power  in  question. 

It  is  a  universal  and  fundamental  political  principle,  that  the  power 
to  protect  can  safely  be  confided  only  to  those  interested  in  protecting, 
or  their  responsible  agents — a  maxim  not  less  true  in  private  than  in 
public  affairs.  The  danger  in  our  system  is,  that  the  General  Govern 
ment,  which  represents  the  interests  of  the  whole,  may  encroach  on  the 
states,  which  represents  the  peculiar  and  local  interests,  or  that  the 
latter  may  encroach  on  the  former. 

In  examining  this  point,  we  ought  not  to  forget  that  the  government, 
through  all  its  departments,  judicial  as  well  as  others,  is  administered 
by  delegated  and  responsible  agents ;  and  that  the  power  which  really 
controls,  ultimately,  all  the  movements,  is  not  in  the  agents,  but  those  who 
elect  or  appoint  them.  To  understand,  then,  its  real  character,  and  what 
would  be  the  action  of  the  system  in  any  supposable  case,  we  must 
raise  our  view  from  the  mere  agents  to  this  high  controlling  power, 
which  finally  impels  every  movement  of  the  machine.  By  doing  so,  we 
shall  find  all  under  the  control  of  the  will  of  a  majority,  compounded  of 
the  majority  of  the  states,  taken  as  corporate  bodies,  and  the  majority 
of  the  people  of  the  states,  estimated  in  federal  numbers.  These,  united, 
constitute  the  real  and  final  power  which  impels  and  directs  the  move 
ments  of  the  General  Government.  The  majority  of  the  states  elect 
the  majority  of  the  Senate  ;  of  the  people  of  the  states,  that  of  the 
House  of  Representatives;  the  two  united,  the  President;  and  the 
President  and  a  majority  of  the  Senate  appoint  the  judges  :  a  majority 

*  I  refer  to  the  authority  of  Chief-Justice  Marshall,  in  the  case  of  Jonathan  Rob- 
Dins.  I  have  not  been  able  to  refer  to  the  speech,  and  speak  frcm  memory. 

8 


170  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

of  whom,  and  a  majority  of  the  Senate  and  House,  with  the  President, 
really  exercise  all  the  powers  of  the  government,  with  the  exception 
of  the  cases  where  the  Constitution  requires  a  greater  number  than  a 
majority.  The  judges  are,  in  fact,  as  truly  the  judicial  representatives 
of  this  united  majority,  as  the  majority  of  Congress  itself,  or  the  Presi 
dent,  is  its  legislative  or  executive  representative ;  and  to  confide  the 
power  to  the  judiciary  to  determine  finally  and  conclusively  what 
powers  are  delegated  and  what  reserved,  would  be,  in  reality,  to  confide 
it  to  the  majority,  whose  agents  they  are,  and  by  whom  they  can  be 
controlled  in  various  ways  ;  and,  of  course,  to  subject  (against  the  funda 
mental  principle  of  our  system  and  all  sound  political  reasoning)  the 
reserved  powers  of  the  states,  with  all  the  local  and  peculiar  interests 
they  were  intended  to  protect,  to  the  will  of  the  very  majority  against 
which  the  protection  was  intended.  Nor  will  the  tenure  by  which  the 
judges  hold  their  office,  however  valuable  the  provision  in  many  other 
respects,  materially  vary  the  case.  Its  highest  possible  effect  would  be 
to  retard,  and  not  finally  to  resist  the  will  of  a  dominant  majority. 

But  it  is  useless  to  multiply  arguments.  Were  it  possible  that  rea 
son  could  settle  a  question  where  the  passions  and  interests  of  men  are 
concerned,  this  point  would  have  been  long  since  settled  forever  by 
the  State  of  Virginia.  The  report  of  her  Legislature,  to  which  I  have 
already  referred,  has  really,  in  my  opinion,  placed  it  beyond  contro 
versy.  Speaking  in  reference  to  this  subject,  it  says :  "  It  has  been 
objected"  (to  the  right  of  a  state  to  interpose  for  the  protection  of  her 
reserved  rights)  "  that  the  judicial  authority  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
sole  expositor  of  the  Constitution.  On  this  objection  it  might  be  ol/- 
served,  first,  that  there  may  be  instances  of  usurped  powers  which  the 
forms  of  the  Constitution  could  never  draw  within  the  control  of  the 
judicial  department;  secondly,  that,  if  the  decision  of  the  judiciary  be 
raised  above  the  sovereign  parties  of  the  Constitution,  the  decisions  of 
the  other  departments,  not  carried  by  the  forms  of  the  Constitution 
before  the  judiciary,  must  be  equally  authoritative  and  final  with  the 
decision  of  that  department.  But  the  proper  answer  to  the  objection 
is,  that  the  resolution  of  the  General  Assembly  relates  to  those  great 
and  extraordinary  cases  in  which  all  the  forms  of  the  Constitution  may 
prove  ineffectual  against  infractions  dangerous  to  the  essential  rights 
of  the  parties  to  it.  The  resolution  supposes  that  dangerous  powers, 
not  delegated,  may  not  only  be  usurped  and  executed  by  the  other 
departments,  but  that  the  judicial  department  may  also  exercise  or 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    171 

sanction  dangerous  powers,  beyond  the  grant  of  the  Constitution,  and, 
consequently,  that  the  ultimate  right  of  the  parties  to  the  Constitution 
to  judge  whether  the  compact  has  been  dangerously  violated,  must  ex 
tend  to  violations  by  one  delegated  authority,  as  well  as  by  another — 
by  the  judiciary,  as  well  as  by  the  executive  or  legislative." 

Against  these  conclusive  arguments,  as  they  seem  to  me,  it  is  ob 
jected  that,  if  one  of  the  parties  has  the  right  to  judge  of  infractions 
of  the  Constitution,  so  has  the  other  ;  and  that,  consequently,  in  cases 
of  contested  powers  between  a  state  and  the  General  Government, 
each  would  have  a  right  to  maintain  its  opinion,  as  is  the  case  when 
sovereign  powers  differ  in  the  construction  of  treaties  or  compacts,  and 
that,  of  course,  it  would  come  to  be  a  mere  question  of  force.  The 
error  is  in  the  assumption  that  the  General  Government  is  a  party  to 
the  constitutional  compact.  The  states,  as  has  been  shown,  formed  the 
compact,  acting  as  sovereign  and  independent  communities.  The  Gen 
eral  Government  is  but  its  creature ;  and  though,  in  reality,  a  govern 
ment,  witli  all  the  rights  and  authority  which  belong  to  any  other  gov 
ernment,  within  the  orbit  of  its  powers,  it  is,  nevertheless,  a  government 
emanating  from  a  compact  between  sovereigns,  and  partaking,  in  its 
nature  and  object,  of  the  character  of  a  joint  commission,  appointed  to 
superintend  and  administer  the  interests  in  which  all  are  jointly  con 
cerned,  but  having,  beyond  its  proper  sphere,  no  more  power  than  if  it 
did  not  exist.  To  deny  this  would  be  to  deny  the  most  incontestable 
facts  and  the  clearest  conclusions ;  while  to  acknowledge  its  truth  is  to 
destroy  utterly  the  objection  that  the  appeal  would  be  to  force,  in  the 
case  supposed.  For,  if  each  party  has  a  right  to  judge,  then,  under 
our  system  of  government,  the  final  cognizance  of  a  question  of  con 
tested  power  would  be  in  the  states,  and  not  in  the  General  Govern 
ment.  It  would  be  the  duty  of  the  latter,  as  in  all  similar  cases  of  a 
contest  between  one  or  more  of  the  principals  and  a  joint  commission 
or  agency,  to  refer  the  contest  to  the  principals  themselves.  Such  are 
the  plain  dictates  of  both  reason  and  analogy.  On  no  sound  principle 
can  the  agents  have  a  right  to  final  cognizance,  as  against  the  princi 
pals,  much  less  to  use  force  against  them  to  maintain  their  construction 
of  their  powers.  Such  a  right  would  be  monstrous,  and  has  never, 
heretofore,  been  claimed  in  similar  cases. 

That  the  doctrine  is  applicable  to  the  case  of  a  contested  power  be 
tween  the  states  and  the  General  Government,  we  have  the  authority 
not  only  of  reason  and  analogy,  but  of  the  distinguished  statesman 


172  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

already  referred  to.  Mr.  Jefferson,  at  a  late  period  of  his  life,  after 
long  experience  and  mature  reflection,  says,  "  With  respect  to  our  State 
and  Federal  Governments,  I  do  not  think  their  relations  are  correctly 
understood  by  foreigners.  They  suppose  the  former  are  subordinate 
to  the  latter.  This  is  not  the  case.  They  are  coordinate  departments 
of  one  simple  and  integral  whole.  But  you  may  ask,  If  the  two  de 
partments  should  claim  each  the  same  subject  of  power,  where  is  the 
umpire  to  decide  between  them  ?  In  cases  of  little  urgency  or  im 
portance,  the  prudence  of  both  parties  will  keep  them  aloof  from  the 
questionable  ground ;  but,  if  it  can  neither  be  avoided  nor  compro 
mised,  a  convention  of  the  states  must  be  called  to  ascribe  the  doubtful 
power  to  that  department  which  they  may  think  best."  It  is  thus  that 
our  Constitution,  by  authorizing  amendments,  and  by  prescribing  the 
authority  and  mode  of  making  them,  has,  by  a  simple  contrivance,  with 
its  characteristic  wisdom,  provided  a  power  which,  in  the  last  resort, 
supersedes  effectually  the  necessity,  and  even  the  pretext  for  force :  a 
oower  to  which  none  can  fairly  object ;  with  which  the  interests  of  all 
are  safe  ;  which  can  definitively  close  all  controversies  in  the  only 
effectual  mode,  by  freeing  the  compact  of  every  defect  and  uncertainty, 
by  an  amendment  of  the  instrument  itself.  It  is  impossible  for  human 
wisdom,  in  a  system  like  ours,  to  devise  another  mode  which  shall  be 
safe  and  effectual,  and,  at  the  same  time,  consistent  with  what  are  the 
relations  and  acknowledged  powers  of  the  two  great  departments  of 
our  government.  It  gives  a  beauty  and  security  peculiar  to  our  system, 
which,  if  duly  appreciated,  will  transmit  its  blessings  to  the  remotest 
generations  ;  but,  if  not,  our  splendid  anticipations  of  the  future  will 
prove  but  an  empty  dream.  Stripped  of  all  its  covering,  the  naked 
question  is,  whether  ours  is  a  federal  or  a  consolidated  government ;  a 
constitutional  or  absolute  one  ;  a  government  resting  ultimately  on  the 
solid  basis  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  states  or  on  the  unrestrained  will 
of  a  majority;  a  form  of  government,  as  in  all  other  unlimited  ones, 
in  which  injustice,  and  violence,  and  force  must  finally  prevail.  Let  it 
never  be  forgotten  that,  where  the  majority  rules  without  restriction,  the 
minority  is  the  subject ;  and  that,  if  we  should  absurdly  attribute  to 
the  former  the  exclusive  right  of  construing  the  Constitution,  there 
would  be,  in  fact,  between  the  sovereign  and  subject,  under  such  a  gov 
ernment,  no  constitution,  or,  at  least,  nothing  deserving  the  name,  or 
serving  the  legitimate  object  of  so  sacred  an  instrument." 

How  the  states  are  to  exercise  tin's  high  power  of  interposition, 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    173 

which  constitutes  so  essential  a  portion  of  their  reserved  rights  that  it 
cannot  be  delegated  without  an  entire  surrender  of  their  sovereignty,  and 
converting  our  system  from  a  federal  into  a  consolidated  government, 
is  a  question  that  the  states  only  are  competent  to  determine.  The 
arguments  which  prove  that  they  possess  the  power,  equally  prove  that 
they  are,  in  the  language  of  Jefferson,  "  the  rightful  judges  of  the  mode 
and  measure  of  redress"  But  the  spirit  of  forbearance,  as  well  as  the 
nature  of  the  right  itself,  forbids  a  recourse  to  it,  except  in  cases  of 
dangerous  infractions  of  the  Constitution ;  and  then  only  in  the  last 
resort,  when  all  reasonable  hope  of  relief  from  the  ordinary  action  of 
the  government  has  failed ;  when,  if  the  right  to  interpose  did  not 
exist,  the  alternative  would  be  submission  and  oppression  on  one  side, 
or  resistance  by  force  on  the  other.  That  our  system  should  afford,  in 
sucli  extreme  cases,  an  intermediate  point  between  these  dire  alterna 
tives,  by  which  the  government  may  be  brought  to  a  pause,  and  thereby 
an  interval  obtained  to  compromise  differences,  or,  if  impracticable,  be 
compelled  to  submit  the  question  to  a  constitutional  adjustment,  through 
an  appeal  to  the  states  themselves,  is  an  evidence  of  its  high  wisdom : 
an  element  not,  as  is  supposed  by  some,  of  weakness,  but  of  strength; 
not  of  anarchy  or  revolution,  but  of  peace  and  safety.  Its  general 
recognition  would  of  itself,  in  a  great  measure,  if  not  altogether,  super 
sede  the  necessity  of  its  exercise,  by  impressing  on  the  movements  of  the 
government  that  moderation  and  justice  so  essential  to  harmony  and 
peace,  in  a  country  of  such  vast  extent  and  diversity  of  interests  as  ours  ; 
and  would,  if  controversy  should  come,  turn  the  resentment  of  the 
aggrieved  from  the  system  to  those  who  had  abused  its  powers  (a 
point  all-important),  and  cause  them  to  seek  redress,  not  in  revolution 
or  overthrow,  but  in  reformation.  It  is,  in  fact,  properly  understood, 
a  substitute,  where  the  alternative  would  be  force,  tending  to  prevent,  and, 
if  that  fails,  to  correct  peaceably  the  aberrations  to  which  all  systems 
are  liable,  and  which,  if  permitted  to  accumulate  without  correction, 
must  finally  end  in  a  general  catastrophe. 

I  have  now  said  what  I  intended  in  reference  to  the  abstract  question 
of  the  relation  of  the  states  to  the  General  Government,  and  would 
here  conclude,  did  I  not  believe  that  a  mere  general  statement  on  an 
abstract  question,  without  including  that  which  may  have  caused  its 
agitation,  would  be  considered  by  many  imperfect  and  unsatisfactory. 
Feeling  that  such  would  be  justly  the  case,  I  am  compelled,  reluctantly, 
to  touch  on  the  tariff,  so  far,  at  least,  as  may  be  necessary  to  illustrate 


174  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

the  opinions  which  I  have  already  advanced.  Anxious,  however,  to 
intrude  as  little  as  possible  on  the  public  attention,  I  will  be  as  brief  as 
possible  ;  and  with  that  view  will,  as  far  as  may  be  consistent  with  my 
object,  avoid  all  debatable  topics. 

Whatever  diversity  of  opinion  may  exist  in  relation  to  the  principle, 
or  the  effect  on  the  productive  industry  of  the  country,  of  the  present, 
or  any  other  tariff  of  protection,  there  are  certain  political  conse 
quences  flowing  from  the  present  which  none  can  doubt,  and  all  must 
deplore.  It  would  be  in  vain  to  attempt  to  conceal,  that  it  has  divided 
the  country  into  two  great  geographical  divisions,  and  arrayed  them 
against  each  other,  in  opinion  at  least,  if  not  interests  also,  on  some  of 
the  most  vital  of  political  subjects — on  its  finance,  its  commerce,  and 
its  industry — subjects  calculated,  above  all  others,  in  time  of  peace,  to 
produce  excitement,  and  in  relation  to  which  the  tariff  has  placed  the 
sections  in  question  in  deep  and  dangerous  conflict.  If  there  be  any 
point  on  which  the  (I  was  going  to  say,  southern  section,  but  to  avoid 
as  far  as  possible,  the  painful  feelings  such  discussions  are  calculated  to 
excite,  I  shall  say)  weaker  of  the  two  sections  is  unanimous,  it  is  that 
its  prosperity  depends,  in  a  great  measure,  on  free  trade,  light  taxes 
economical,  and,  as  far  as  possible,  equal  disbursements  of  the  public 
revenue,  and  unshackled  industry,  leaving  them  to  pursue  whatever 
may  appear  most  advantageous  to  their  interests.  From  the  Potomac 
to  the  Mississippi,  there  are  few,  indeed,  however  divided  on  other 
points,  who  would  not,  if  dependent  on  their  volition,  and  if  they  re 
garded  the  interest  of  their  particular  section  only,  remove  from  com 
merce  and  industry  every  shackle,  reduce  the  revenue  to  the  lowest 
point  that  the  wants  of  the  government  fairly  required,  and  restrict 
the  appropriations  to  the  most  moderate  scale  consistent  with  the 
peace,  the  security,  and  the  engagements  of  the  public ;  and  who  do 
not  believe  that  the  opposite  system  is  calculated  to  throw  on  them  an 
unequal  burden,  to  repress  their  prosperity,  and  to  encroach  on  their 
enjoyment. 

On  all  these  deeply-important  measures,  the  opposite  opinion  pre 
vails,  if  not  with  equal  unanimity,  with  at  least  a  greatly  preponderat 
ing  majority,  in  the  other  and  stronger  section ;  so  much  so,  that  no 
two  distinct  nations  ever  entertained  more  opposite  views  of  policy 
than  these  two  sections  do  on  all  the  important  points  to  which  I  have 
referred.  Nor  is  it  less  certain  that  this  unhappy  conflict,  flowing 
directly  from  the  tariff,  has  extended  itself  to  the  halls  of  legisla- 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    175 

tion,  and  has  converted  the  deliberations  of  Congress  into  an  annual 
struggle  between  the  two  sections ;  the  stronger  to  maintain  and  in 
crease  the  superiority  it  has  already  acquired,  and  the  other  to  throw 
off  or  diminish  its  burdens :  a  struggle  in  which  all  the  noble  and  gen 
erous  feelings  of  patriotism  are  gradually  subsiding  into  sectional  and 
selfish  attachments.*  Nor  has  the  effect  of  this  dangerous  conflict 
ended  here.  It  has  not  only  divided  the  two  sections  on  the  important 
point  already  stated,  but  on  the  deeper  and  more  dangerous  questions, 
the  constitutionality  of  a  protective  tariff,  and  the  general  principles 
and  theory  of  the  Constitution  itself:  the  stronger,  in  order  to  main 
tain  their  superiority,  giving  a  construction  to  the  instrument  which 
the  other  believes  would  convert  the  General  Government  into  a  con 
solidated,  irresponsible  government,  with  the  total  destruction  of  lib 
erty  ;  and  the  weaker,  seeing  no  hope  of  relief  with  such  assumption 
of  powers,  turning  its  eye  to  the  reserved  sovereignty  of  the  states,  as 
the  only  refuge  from  oppression.  I  shall  not  extend  these  remarks,  as 
I  might,  by  showing  that,  while  the  effect  of  the  system  of  protection, 
was  rapidly  alienating  one  section,  it  was  not  less  rapidly,  by  its  neces 
sary  operation,  distracting  and  corrupting  the  other  ;  and,  between  the 
two,  subjecting  the  administration  to  violent  and  sudden  changes, 
totally  inconsistent  with  all  stability  and  wisdom  in  the  management 
of  the  affairs  of  the  nation,  of  which  we  already  see  fearful  symptoms. 
Nor  do  I  deem  it  necessary  to  inquire  whether  this  unhappy  conflict 
grows  out  of  true  or  mistaken  views  of  interest  on  either  or  both 
sides.  Eegarded  in  either  light,  it  ought  to  admonish  us  of  the  ex 
treme  danger  to  which  our  system  is  exposed,  and  the  great  modera 
tion  and  wisdom  necessary  to  preserve  it.  If  it  comes  from  mistaken 
views — if  the  interests  of  the  two  sections,  as  affected  by  the  tariff,  be 
really  the  same,  and  the  system,  instead  of  acting  unequally,  in  reality 
diffuses  equal  blessing?,  and  imposes  equal  burdens  on  every  part — it 
ought  to  teach  us  how  liable  those  who  are  differently  situated,  and 
who  view  their  interests  under  different  aspects,  are  to  come  to  differ 
ent  conclusions,  even  when  their  interests  are  strictly  the  same  ;  and, 
consequently,  with  what  extreme  caution  any  system  of  policy  ought 

*  This  system,  if  continued,  must  end,  not  only  in  subjecting  the  industry  and 
property  of  the  weaker  section  to  the  control  of  the  stronger,  but  in  proscription  and 
political  disfranchisement.  It  must  finally  control  elections  and  appointments  to 
offices,  as  well  as  acts  of  legislation,  to  the  great  increase  of  the  feelings  of  animosity, 
and  of  the  fatal  tendency  to  complete  alienation  between  the  sections. 


176  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

to  be  adopted,  and  with  what  a  spirit  of  moderation  pursued,  in  a 
country  of  such  great  extent  and  diversity  as  ours.  But  if,  on  the 
contrary,  the  conflict  springs  really  from  contrariety  of  interests — if 
the  burden  be  on  one  side  and  the  benefit  on  the  other — then  are  we 
taught  a  lesson  not  less  important,  how  little  regard  we  have  for  the 
interests  of  others  while  in  pursuit  of  our  own  ;  or,  at  least,  how  apt 
we  are  to  consider  our  own  interest  the  interest  of  all  others ;  and,  of 
course,  how  great  the  danger,  in  a  country  of  such  acknowledged 
diversity  of  interests,  of  the  oppression  of  the  feebler  by  the  stronger 
interest,  and,  in  consequence  of  it,  of  the  most  fatal  sectional  conflicts. 
But  whichever  may  be  the  cause,  the  real  or  supposed  diversity  of 
interest,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  political  consequences  of  the 
prohibitory  system,  be  its  effects  in  other  respects  beneficial  or  other 
wise,  are  really  such  as  I  have  stated ;  nor  can  it  be  doubted  that  a 
conflict  between  the  great  sections,  on  questions  so  vitally  important,  in 
dicates  a  condition  of  the  country  so  distempered  and  dangerous,  as 
to  demand  the  most  serious  and  prompt  attention.  It  is  only  when  we 
come  to  consider  of  the  remedy,  that,  under  the  aspect  I  am  viewing 
the  subject,  there  can  be,  among  the  informed  and  considerate,  any 
diversity  of  opinion. 

Those  who  have  not  duly  reflected  on  its  dangerous  and  inveterate 
character,  suppose  that  the  disease  will  cure  itself;  that  events  ought 
to  be  left  to  take  their  own  course ;  and  that  experience,  in  a  short  time, 
will  prove  that  the  interest  of  the  whole  community  is  the  same  in 
reference  to  the  tariff,  or,  at  least,  whatever  diversity  there  may  now 
be,  time  will  assimilate.  Such  has  been  their  language  from  the  begin 
ning,  bnt,  unfortunately,  the  progress  of  events  has  been  the  reverse. 
The  country  is  now  more  divided  than  in  1824,  and  then  more  than  in 
1816.  The  majority  may  have  increased,  but  the  opposite  sides  are,  be 
yond  dispute,  more  determined  and  excited  than  at  any  preceding 
period.  Formerly,  the  system  was  resisted  mainly  as  inexpedient ;  but 
now,  as  unconstitutional,  unequal,  unjust,  and  oppressive.  Then,  relief 
was  sought  exclusively  from  the  General  Government ;  but  now,  many, 
driven  to  despair,  are  raising  their  eyes  to  the  reserved  sovereignty  of 
the  states  as  the  only  refuge.  If  we  turn  from  the  past  and  present  to 
the  future,  we  shall  find  nothing  to  lessen,  but  much  to  aggravate  the 
danger.  The  increasing  embarrassment  and  distress  of  the  staple 
states,  the  growing  conviction,  from  experience,  that  they  are  caused 
by  the  prohibitory  system  principally,  and  that  under  its  continued 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    177 

operation,  their  present  pursuits  must  become  profitless,  and  with  a  con 
viction  that  their  great  and  peculiar  agricultural  capital  cannot  be  di 
verted  from  its  ancient  and  hereditary  channels  without  ruinous  losses, 
all  concur  to  increase,  instead  of  dispelling,  the  gloom  that  hangs  over 
the  future.  In  fact,  to  those  who  will  duly  reflect  on  the  subject,  the 
hope  that  the  disease  will  cure  itself  must  appear  perfectly  illusory. 
The  question  is,  in  reality,  one  between  the  exporting  and  non-export 
ing  interests  of  the  country.  Were  there  no  exports,  there  would  be  no 
tariff.  It  would  be  perfectly  useless.  On  the  contrary,  so  long  as 
there  are  states  which  raise  the  great  agricultural  staples  with  the  view 
of  obtaining  their  supplies,  and  which  must  depend  on  the  general 
market  of  the  world  for  their  sales,  the  conflict  must  remain  if  the  sys 
tem  should  continue,  and  the  disease  become  more  and  more  inveter 
ate.  Their  interest,  and  that  of  those  who,  by  high  duties,  would  con 
fine  the  purchase  of  their  supplies  to  the  home  market,  must,  from  the 
nature  of  things,  in  reference  to  the  tariff,  be  in  conflict.  Till,  then,  we 
cease  to  raise  the  great  staples  cotton,  rice,  and  tobacco,  for  the  general 
market,  and  till  we  can  find  some  other  profitable  investment  for  the 
immense  amount  of  capital  and  labor  now  employed  in  their  produc 
tion,  the  present  unhappy  and  dangerous  conflict  cannot  terminate,  un 
less  witli  the  prohibitory  system  itself 

In  the  mean  time,  while  idly  waiting  for  its  termination  through  its 
own  action,  the  progress  of  events  in  another  quarter  is  rapidly  bring 
ing  the  contest  to  an  immediate  and  decisive  issue.  "We  are  fast  ap 
proaching  a  period  very  novel  in  the  history  of  nations,  and  bearing 
directly  and  powerfully  on  the  point  under  consideration — the  final 
payment  of  a  long-standing  funded  debt — a  period  that  cannot  be 
greatly  retarded,  or  its  natural  consequences  eluded,  without  proving 
disastrous  to  those  who  attempt  either,  if  not  to  the  country  itself. 
When  it  arrives  the  government  will  find  itself  in  possession  of  a  sur 
plus  revenue  of  $10,000,000  or  $12,000,000,  if  not  previously  disposed 
of — which  presents  the  important  question,  What  previous  disposition 
ought  to  be  made  ?  a  question  which  must  press  urgently  for  decision  at 
the  very  next  session  of  Congress.  It  cannot  be  delayed  longer  without 
the  most  distracting  and  dangerous  consequences. 

The  honest  and  obvious  course  is,  to  prevent  the  accumulation  of  the 
surplus  in  the  treasury  by  a  timely  and  judicious  reduction  of  the  im 
posts  ;  and  thereby  to  leave  the  money  in  the  pockets  of  those  who 
made  it,  and  from  whom  it  cannot  be  honestly  nor  constitutionally  taken 


178  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831, 

unless  required  by  the  fair  and  legitimate  wants  of  the  government.  If, 
neglecting  a  disposition  so  obvious  and  just,  the  government  should 
attempt  to  keep  up  the  present  high  duties,  when  the  money  is  no 
longer  wanted,  or  to  dispose  of  this  immense  surplus  by  enlarging  the 
old,  or  devising  new  schemes  of  appropriations ;  or,  rinding  that  to  be 
impossible,  it  should  adopt,  the  most  dangerous,  unconstitutional,  and 
absurd  project  ever  devised  by  any  government,  of  dividing  the  surplus 
among  the  states— a  project  which,  if  carried  into  execution,  would  not 
fail  to  create  an  antagonist  interest  between  the  states  and  General 
Government  on  all  questions  of  appropriations,  which  would  certainly 
end  in  reducing  the  latter  to  a  mere  office  of  collection  and  distribution 
— either  of  these  modes  would  be  considered  by  the  section  suffering 
under  the  present  high  duties  as  a  fixed  determination  to  perpetuate 
forever  what  it  considers  the  present  unequal,  unconstitutional,  and  op 
pressive  burden ;  and  from  that  moment  it  would  cease  to  look  to  the 
General  Government  for  relief.  This  deeply-interesting  period,  which 
must  prove  so  disastrous  should  a  wrong  direction  be  given,  but  so  for 
tunate  and  glorious,  should  a  right  one,  is  just  at  hand.  The  work  must 
commence  at  the  next  session,  as  I  have  stated,  or  be  left  undone,  or,  at 
least,  be  badly  done.  The  succeeding  session  would  be  too  short,  and 
too  much  agitated  by  the  presidential  contest,  to  afford  the  requisite 
leisure  and  calmness ;  and  the  one  succeeding  would  find  the  country  in 
the  midst  of  the  crisis,  when  it  would  be  too  late  to  prevent  an  accumu 
lation  of  the  surplus ;  which  I  hazard  nothing  in  saying,  judging  from 
the  nature  of  men  and  governmept,  if  once  permitted  to  accumulate, 
would  create  an  interest  strong  enough  to  perpetuate  itself,  supported, 
as  it  would  be,  by  others  so  numerous  and  powerful ;  and  thus  would 
pass  away  a  moment,  never  to  be  quietly  recalled,  so  precious,  if  prop 
erly  used,  to  lighten  the  public  burden ;  to  equalize  the  action  of  the 
government ;  to  restore  harmony  and  peace  ;  and  to  present  to  the 
world  the  illustrious  example,  which  could  not  fail  to  prove  most  favor 
able  to  the  great  cause  of  liberty  everywhere,  of  a  nation  the  freest, 
and,  at  the  same  time,  the  best  and  most  cheaply  governed ;  of  the 
highest  earthly  blessing  at  the  least  possible  sacrifice. 

As  the  disease  will  not,  then,  heal  itself,  we  are  brought  to  the  ques 
tion,  Can  a  remedy  be  applied  ?  and  if  so,  what  ought  it  to  be  ? 

To  answer  in  the  negative  would  be  to  assert  that  our  Union  has 
utterly  failed ;  and  that  the  opinion,  so  common  before  the  adoption  of 
our  Constitution,  that  a  free  government  could  not  be  practically  ex- 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    179 

tended  over  a  large  country,  was  correct :  and  that  ours  had  been  de 
stroyed  by  giving  it  limits  so  great  as  to  comprehend,  not  only  dissimi 
lar,  but  irreconcilable  interests.  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  a  con 
clusion  that  would  cast  so  deep  a  shade  on  the  future,  and  that  would 
falsify  all  the  glorious  anticipations  of  our  ancestors,  while  it  would  so 
greatly  lessen  their  high  reputation  for  wisdom.  Nothing  but  the 
clearest  demonstration,  founded  on  actual  experience,  will  ever  force 
me  to  a  conclusion  so  abhorrent  to  all  my  feelings.  As  strongly  as  I 
am  impressed  with  the  great  dissimilarity,  and,  as  I  must  add,  as  truth 
compels  me  to  do,  contrariety  of  interests  in  our  country,  resulting  from 
the  causes  already  indicated,  and  which  are  so  great  that  they  cannot  be 
subjected  to  the  unchecked  will  of  a  majority  of  the  whole  without  de 
feating  the  great  end  of  government,  and  without  which  it  is  a  curse — 
justice — yet  I  see  in  the  Union,  as  ordained  by  the  Constitution,  the 
means,  if  wisely  used,  not  only  of  reconciling  all  diversities,  but  also 
the  means,  and  the  only  effectual  one,  of  securing  to  us  justice,  peace, 
And  security,  at  home  and  abroad,  and  with  them  that  national  power 
and  renown,  the  love  of  which  Providence  has  implanted,  for  wise  pur 
poses,  so  deeply  in  the  human  heart :  in  all  of  which  great  objects, 
every  portion  of  our  country,  widely  extended  and  diversified  as  it  is, 
has  a  common  and  identical  interest.  If  we  have  the  wisdom  to  place 
a  proper  relative  estimate  on  these  more  elevated  and  durable  blessings, 
the  present  and  every  other  conflict  of  like  character  may  be  readily 
terminated ;  but  if,  reversing  the  scale,  each  section  should  put  a  higher 
estimate  on  its  immediate  and  peculiar  gains,  and,  acting  in  that  spirit, 
should  push  favorite  measures  of  mere  policy,  without  some  regard  to 
peace,  harmony  or  justice,  our  sectional  conflicts  would  then,  indeed, 
without  some  constitutional  check,  become  interminable,  except  by  the 
dissolution  of  the  Union  itself.  That  we  have,  in  fact,  so  reversed  the 
estimate,  is  too  certain  to  be  doubted,  and  the  result  is  our  present  dis 
tempered  and  dangerous  condition.  The  cure  must  commence  in  the 
correction  of  the  error ;  and  not  to  admit  that  we  have  erred  would  be 
the  worst  possible  symptom.  It  would  prove  the  disease  to  be  in 
curable,  through  the  regular  and  ordinary  process  of  legislation ;  and 
would  compel,  finally  a  resort  to  extraordinary,  but  I  still  trust,  not  only 
constitutional,  but  safe  remedies. 

No  one  would  more  sincerely  rejoice  than  myself  to  see  the  remedy 
applied  from  the  quarter  where  it  could  be  most  easily  and  regularly 
done.  It  is  the  only  way  by  which  those  who  think  that  it  is  the  only 


180  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

quarter  from  which  it  can  constitutionally  come,  can  possibly  sustain 
their  opinion.  To  omit  the  application  by  the  General  Government 
would  compel  even  them  to  admit  the  truth  of  the  opposite  opinion,  or 
force  them  to  abandon  our  political  system  in  despair  ;  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  all  their  enlightened  and  patriotic  opponents  would  rejoice 
at  such  evidence  of  moderation  and  wisdom,  on  the  part  of  the  General 
Government,  as  would  supersede  a  resort  to  what  they  believe  to  be  the 
higher  powers  of  our  political  system,  as  indicating  a  sounder  state  of 
public  sentiment  than  has  ever  heretofore  existed  in  any  country,  and 
thus  affording  the  highest  possible  assurance  of  the  perpetuation  of  our 
glorious  institutions  to  the  latest  generation.  For,  as  a  people  advance 
in  knowledge,  in  the  same  degree  they  may  dispense  with  mere  arti 
ficial  restrictions  in  their  government ;  and  we  may  imagine  (but  dare 
not  expect  to  see  it)  a  state  of  intelligence  so  universal  and  high,  that 
all  the  guards  of  liberty  may  be  dispensed  with  except  an  enlightened 
public  opinion,  acting  through  the  right  of  suffrage  ;  but  it  presupposes 
a  state  where  every  class  and  every  section  of  the  community  are  capa 
ble  of  estimating  the  effects  of  every  measure,  not  only  as  it  may  affect 
itself,  but  every  other  class  and  section ;  and  of  fully  realizing  the  sub 
lime  truth  that  the  highest  and  wisest  policy  consists  in  maintaining 
justice,  and  promoting  peace  and  harmony ;  and  that,  compared  to  these, 
schemes  of  mere  gain  are  but  trash  and  dross.  I  fear  experience  has 
already  proved  that  we  are  far  removed  from  such  a  state,  and  that  we 
must,  consequently,  rely  on  the  old  and  clumsy,  but  approved  mode  of 
checking  power,  in  order  to  prevent  or  correct  abuses ;  but  I  do  trust 
that,  though  far  from  perfect,  we  are,  at  least,  so  much  so  as  to  be  capa 
ble  of  remedying  the  present  disorder  in  the  ordinary  way  ;  and  thus 
to  prove  that  with  us  public  opinion  is  so  enlightened,  and  our  political 
machine  so  perfect,  as  rarely  to  require  for  its  preservation  the  inter 
vention  of  the  power  that  created  it.  How  is  that  to  be  effected  ? 

The  application  may  be  painful,  but  the  remedy,  I  conceive,  is  certain 
and  simple.  There  is  but  one  effectual  cure — an  honest  reduction  of  the 
duties  to  a  fair  system  of  revenue,  adapted  to  the  just  and  constitutional 
wants  of  the  government.  Nothing  short  of  this  will  restore  the  coun 
try  to  peace,  harmony,  and  mutual  affection.  There  is  already  a  deep 
and  growing  conviction,  in  a  large  section  of  the  country,  that  the  im 
post,  even  as  a  revenue  system,  is  extremely  unequal,  and  that  it  is 
mainly  paid  by  those  who  furnish  the  means  of  paying  the  foreign  ex 
changes  of  the  country  on  which  it  is  laid  ;  and  that  the  case  would 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    181 

not  be  varied,  taking  into  the  estimate  the  entire  action  of  the  system, 
whether  the  producer  or  consumer  pays  in  the  first  instance. 

I  do  not  propose  to  enter  formally  into  the  discussion  of  a  point  so 
complex  and  contested ;  but,  as  it  has  necessarily  a  strong  practical 
bearing  on  the  subject  under  consideration  in  all  its  relations,  I  cannot 
pass  it  without  a  few  general  and  brief  remarks : 

If  the  producer  in  reality  pays,  none  will  doubt  but  the  burden  would 
mainly  fall  on  the  section  it  is  supposed  to  do.  The  theory  that  the 
consumer  pays  in  the  first  instance  renders  the  proposition  more  com 
plex,  and  will  require,  in  order  to  understand  where  the  burden,  in 
reality,  ultimately  falls,  on  that  supposition,  to  consider  the  protective, 
or,  as  its  friends  call  it,  the  American  System,  under  its  threefold  aspect 
of  taxation,  of  protection,  and  of  distribution,  or  as  performing,  at  the 
same  time,  the  several  functions  of  giving  a  revenue  to  the  government, 
of  affording  protection  to  certain  branches  of  domestic  industry,  and  fur 
nishing  means  to  Congress  of  distributing  large  sums  through  its  appro 
priations:  all  of  which  are  so  blended  in  their  effects,  that  it  is  impossi 
ble  to  understand  its  true  operation  without  taking  the  whole  into  the 
estimate. 

Admitting,  then,  as  supposed,  that  he  who  consumes  the  article  pays 
the  tax  in  the  increased  price,  and  that  the  burden  falls  wholly  on  the 
consumers,  without  affecting  the  producers  as  a  class  (which,  by-the-by, 
is  far  from  being  true,  except  in-  the  single  case,  if  there  be  such  a  one, 
where  the  producers  have  a  monopoly  of  an  article  so  indispensable  to 
life  that  the  quantity  consumed  cannot  be  affected  by  any  increase  of 
price),  and  that,  considered  in  the  light  of  a  tax  merely,  the  impost 
duties  fall  equally  on  every  section  in  proportion  to  its  population,  still, 
when  combined  with  its  other  effects,  the  burden  it  imposes  as  a  tax 
may  be  so  transferred  from  one  section  to  the  other  as  to  take  it  from 
one  and  place  it  wholly  on  the  other.  Let  us  apply  the  remark  first  to 
its  operation  as  a  system  of  protection  : 

The  tendency  of  the  tax  or  duty  on  the  imported  article  is  not  only 
to  raise  its  price,  but  also,  in  the  same  proportion,  that  of  the  domestic 
article  of  the  same  kind,  for  which  purpose,  when  intended  for  protec 
tion,  it  is,  in  fact,  laid  ;  and,  of  course,  in  determining  where  the  system 
ultimately  places  the  burden  in  reality,  this  effect,  also,  must  be  taken 
into  the  estimate.  If  one  of  the  sections  exclusively  produces  such 
domestic  articles,  and  the  other  purchases  them  from  it,  then  it  is  clear 
.hat  to  the  amount  of  such  increased  prices,  the  tax  or  duty  on  the  con 


182  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831 

sumption  of  foreign  articles  would  be  transferred  from  the  section  pro 
ducing  the  domestic  articles  to  the  one  that  purchased  and  consumed 
them,  unless  the  latter,  in  turn,  be  indemnified  by  the  increased  price  of 
the  objects  of  its  industry,  which  none  will  venture  to  assert  to  be  the 
case  with  the  great  staples  of  the  country  which  form  the  basis  of  our 
exports,  the  price  of  which  is  regulated  by  the  foreign,  and  not  the  do 
mestic  market.  To  those  who  grow  them,  the  increased  price  of  the 
foreign  and  domestic  articles  both,  in  consequence  of  the  duty  on  tho 
former,  is  in  reality,  and  in  the  strictest  sense,  a  tax,  while  it  is  clear 
that  the  increased  price  of  the  latter  acts  as  a  bounty  to  the  section 
producing  them ;  and  that,  as  the  amount  of  such  increased  prices  on 
what  it  sells  to  the  other  section  is  greater  or  less  than  the  duty  it  pays 
on  the  imported  articles,  the  system  will,  in  fact,  operate  as  a  bounty  or 
tax :  if  greater,  the  difference  would  be  a  bounty  ;  if  less,  a  tax. 

Again,  the  operation  may  be  equal  in  every  other  respect,  and  yet 
the  pressure  of  the  system,  relatively,  on  the  two  sections,  be  rendered 
very  unequal  by  the  appropriations  or  distribution.  If  each  section 
receives  back  what  it  paid  into  the  treasury,  the  equality,  if  it  previous 
ly  existed,  will  continue ;  but  if  one  receives  back  less,  and  the  other 
proportionably  more  than  is  paid,  then  the  difference  in  relation  to  the 
sections  will  be  to  the  former  a  loss,  and  to  the  latter  a  gain  ;  and  the 
system,  in  this  aspect,  would  operate  to  the  amount  of  the  difference, 
as  a  contribution  from  the  one  receiving  less  than  it  paid  to  the  other 
that  receives  more.  Such  would  be  incontestably  its  general  effects, 
taken  in  all  its  different  aspects,  even  on  the  theory  supposed  to  be 
most  favorable  to  prove  the  equal  action  of  the  system,  that  the  con 
sumer  pays  in  the  fir«t  in^tnn-.'.e  the  whole  amount  of  the  tax. 

To  show  how,  on  this  supposition,  the  burden  and  advantages  of  the 
system  would  actually  distribute  themselves  between  the  sections,  would 
carry  me  too  far  into  details  ;  but  I  feel  assured,  after  full  and  careful 
examination,  that  they  are  such  as  to  explain  what  otherwise  would 
seem  inexplicable,  that  one  section  should  consider  its  repeal  a  calamity 
and  the  other  a  blessing ;  and  that  such  opposite  views  should  be  taken 
by  them  as  to  place  them  in  a  state  of  determined  conflict  in  relation  to 
the  great  fiscal  and  commercial  interests  of  the  country.  Indeed,  were 
there  no  sHtHtactory  explanation,  the  opposite  views  that  prevail  in  the 
t'Vi..  M'i;ti«m-;.  ;is  to  the  t-ii'erts  of  the  system,  ought  to  satisfy  all  of  its 
unequal  action.  There  can  be  no  safer,  or  more  certain  rule,  than  to 
supoose  each  portion  of  the  country  equally  capable  of  understanding 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    183 

its  respective  interests,  and  that  each  is  a  much  better  judge  of  the 
effects  of  any  system  or  measures  on  its  peculiar  interest  than  the  other 
can  possibly  be. 

But,  whether  the  opinion  of  its  unequal  action  be  correct  or  errone 
ous,  nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that  the  impression  is  widely 
extending  itself,  that  the  system,  under  all  its  modifications,  is  essen 
tially  unequal ;  and  if  to  that  be  added  a  conviction  still  deeper  and 
more  universal,  that  every  duty  imposed  for  the  purpose  of  protection, 
is  not  only  unequal,  but  also  unconstitutional,  it  would  be  a  fatal  error 
to  suppose  that  any  remedy,  short  of  that  which  I  have  stated,  can 
heal  our  political  disorders. 

In  order  to  understand  more  fully  the  difficulty  of  adjusting  this  un 
happy  contest  on  any  other  ground,  it  may  not  be  improper  to  present 
a  general  view  of  the  constitutional  objection,  that  it  may  be  clearly 
seen  how  hopeless  it  is  to  expect  that  it  can  be  yielded  by  those  who 
have  embraced  it. 

They  believe  that  all  the  powers  vested  by  the  Constitution  in  Con 
gress  are  not  only  restricted  by  the  limitations  expressly  imposed,  but 
also  by  the  nature  and  object  of  the  powers  themselves.  Thus,  though 
the  power  to  impose  duties  on  imports  be  granted  in  general  terms, 
without  any  other  express  limitations  but  that  they  shall  be  equal,  and 
no  preference  shall  be  given  to  the  ports  of  one  state  over  those  of  an 
other,  yet,  as  being  a  portion  of  the  taxing  power  given  with  the  view 
of  raising  the  revenue,  it  is,  from  its  nature,  restricted  to  that  object, 
as  much  so  as  if  the  Convention  had  expressly  so  limited  it ;  and  that 
to  use  it  to  effect  any  other  purpose  not  specified  in  the  Constitution,  Is 
an  infraction  of  the  instrument  in  its  most  dangerous  form — an  infrac 
tion  by  perversion,  more  easily  made,  and  more  difficult  to  resist,  than 
any  other.  The  same  view  is  believed  to  be  applicable  to  the  power 
of  regulating  commerce,  as  well  as  all  the  other  powers.  To  surrender 
this  important  principle,  it  is  conceived,  would  be  to  surrender  all 
power,  and  to  render  the  government  unlimited  and  despotic ;  and  to 
yield  it  up,  in  relation  to  the  particular  power  in  question,  would  be,  in 
fact,  to  surrender  the  control  of  the  whole  industry  and  capital  of  the 
country  to  the  General  Government,  and  would  end  in  placing  the 
weaker  section  in  a  colonial  relation  with  the  stronger.  For  nothing 
are  more  dissimilar  in  their  nature,  or  may  be  more  unequally  affected 
by  the  same  laws,  than  different  descriptions  of  labor  and  property ; 
and  if  taxes,  by  increasing  the  amount  and  changing  the  intent  only, 


184  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831, 

may  be  perverted,  in  fact,  into  a  system  of  penalties  and  rewards,  it 
would  give  all  the  power  that  could  be  desired  to  subject  the  labor  and 
property  of  the  minority  to  the  will  of  the  majority,  to  be  regulated 
without  regarding  the  interest  of  the  former  in  subserviency  to  the  will 
of  the  latter.  Thus  thinking,  it  would  seem  unreasonable  to  expect 
that  any  adjustment,  based  on  the  recognition  of  the  correctness  of  a 
construction  of  the  Constitution  which  would  admit  the  exercise  of 
such  a  power,  would  satisfy  the  weaker  of  two  sections,  particularly 
with  its  peculiar  industry  and  property,  which  experience  has  shown 
may  be  so  injuriously  affected  by  its  exercise.  Thus  much  for  one  side. 
The  just  claim  of  the  other  ought  to  be  equally  respected.  What 
ever  excitement  the  system  has  justly  caused  in  certain  portions  of  our 
country,  I  hope  and  believe  all  will  conceive  that  the  change  should  be 
made  with  the  least  possible  detriment  to  the  interests  of  those  who 
may  be  liable  to  be  affected  by  it,  consistently  with  what  is  justly  due 
to  others,  and  the  principles  of  the  Constitution.  To  effect  this  will 
require  the  kindest  spirit  of  conciliation  and  the  utmost  skill ;  but, 
even  with  these,  it  will  be  impossible  to  make  the  transition  without  a 
shock,  greater  or  less,  though  I  trust,  if  judiciously  effected,  it  will  not 
be  without  many  compensating  advantages.  That  there  will  be  some 
Buch  cannot  be  doubted.  It  will,  at  least,  be  followed  by  greater  sta 
bility,  and  will  tend  to  harmonize  the  manufacturing  with  all  of  the 
other  great  interests  of  the  country,  and  bind  the  whole  in  mutual 
affection.  But  these  are  not  all.  Another  advantage  of  essential  im 
portance  to  the  ultimate  prosperity  of  our  manufacturing  industry  will 
follow.  It  will  cheapen  production  ;  and,  in  that  view,  the  loss  of  any 
one  branch  will  be  nothing  like  in  proportion  to  the  reduction  of  duty 
on  that  particular  branch.  Every  reduction  will,  in  fact,  operate  as  a 
bounty  to  every  other  branch  except  the  one  reduced  ;  and  thus  the 
effect  of  a  general  reduction  will  be  to  cheapen,  universally,  the  price 
of  production,  by  cheapening  living,  wages,  and  materials,  so  as  to 
give,  if  not  equal  profits  after  the  reduction — profits  by  no  means  re 
duced  proportionally  to  the  duties — an  effect  which,  as  it  regards  the 
foreign  markets,  is  of  the  utmost  importance.  It  must  be  apparent,  on 
reflection,  that  the  means  adopted  to  secure  the  home  market  for  our 
manufactures  are  precisely  the  opposite  of  those  necessary  to  obtain 
the  foreign.  In  the  former,  the  increased  expense  of  production,  in 
consequence  of  a  system  of  protection,  may  be  more  than  compensated 
by  the  increased  price  at  home  of  the  article  protected;  but  in  the  lat- 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    185 

ter,  this  advantage  is  lost ;  and,  as  there  is  no  other  corresponding 
compensation,  the  increased  cost  of  production  must  be  a  dead  loss  in 
the  foreign  market.  But  whether  these  advantages,  and  many  others 
that  might  be  mentioned,  will  ultimately  compensate  to  the  full  extent 
or  not  the  loss  to  the  manufacturers,  on  the  reduction  of  the  duties, 
certain  it  is,  that  we  have  approached  a  point  at  which  a  great  change 
cannot  be  much  longer  delayed ;  and  that  the  more  promptly  it  may 
be  met,  the  less  excitement  there  will  be,  and  the  greater  leisure  and 
calmness  for  a  cautious  and  skillful  operation  in  making  the  transition ; 
and  which  it  becomes  those  more  immediately  interested  to  duly  con 
sider.  Nor  ought  they  to  overlook,  in  considering  the  question,  the  dif 
ferent  character  of  the  claims  of  the  two  sides.  The  one  asks  from 
government  no  advantage,  but  simply  to  be  let  alone  in  the  undis 
turbed  possession  of  their  natural  advantages,  and  to  secure  which,  as 
far  as  was  consistent  with  the  other  objects  of  the  Constitution,  was 
one  of  their  leading  motives  in  entering  into  the  Union  ;  while  the 
other  side  claims,  for  the  advancement  of  their  prosperity,  the  positive 
interference  of  the  government.  In  such  cases,  on  every  principle  of 
fairness  and  justice,  such  interference  ought  to  be  restrained  within 
limits  strictly  compatible  with  the  natural  advantages  of  the  other. 
He  who  looks  to  all  the  causes  in  operation,  the  near  approach  of  the 
final  payment  of  the  public  debt,  the  growing  disaffection  and  resist 
ance  to  the  system  in  so  large  a  section  of  the  country,  the  Jeeper 
principles  on  which  opposition  to  it  is  gradually  turning,  must  be,  in 
deed,  infatuated  not  to  see  a  great  change  is  unavoidable ;  and  that 
the  attempt  to  elude  or  much  longer  delay  it  must  finally  but  increase 
the  shock  and  disastrous  consequences  which  may  follow. 

In  forming  the  opinions  I  have  expressed,  I  have  not  been  actuated 
by  an  unkind  feeling  towards  our  manufacturing  interests.  I  now  am, 
and  ever  have  been,  decidedly  friendly  to  them,  though  I  cannot  con 
cur  in  all  the  measures  which  have  been  adopted  to  advance  them.  I 
believe  considerations  higher  than  any  question  of  mere  pecuniary  in 
terest  forbade  their  use.  But  subordinate  to  these  higher  views  of 
policy,  I  regard  the  advancement  of  mechanical  and  chemical  improve 
ments  in  the  arts  with  feelings  little  short  of  enthusiasm ;  not  only  as 
the  prolific  source  of  national  and  individual  wealth,  but  as  the  great 
means  of  enlarging  the  domain  of  man  over  the  material  world,  and 
thereby  of  laying  the  solid  foundation  of  a  highly-improved  condition 
of  society,  morally  and  politically.  I  fear  not  that  we  shall  extend 


186  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1831. 

our  power  too  far  over  the  great  agents  of  nature ;  but,  on  the  con 
trary,  I  consider  such  enlargement  of  our  power  as  tending  more  cer 
tainly  and  powerfully  to  better  the  condition  of  our  race  than  any  one 
of  the  many  powerful  causes  now  operating  to  that  result.  With 
these  impressions,  I  not  only  rejoice  at  the  general  progress  of  the 
arts  in  the  world,  but  in  their  advancement  in  our  own  country  ;  and 
as  far  as  protection  may  be  incidentally  afforded,  in  the  fair  and  honest 
exercise  of  our  constitutional  powers,  I  think  now,  as  I  have  always 
thought,  that  sound  policy,  connected  with  the  security,  independence, 
and  peace  of  the  country,  requires  it  should  be  done,  but  that  we  can 
not  go  a  single  step  beyond  without  jeopardizing  our  peace,  our  har 
mony,  and  our  liberty — considerations  of  infinitely  more  importance  to 
us  than  any  measure  of  mere  policy  can  possibly  be. 

In  thus  placing  my  opinions  before  the  public,  I  have  not  been  actu 
ated  by  the  expectation  of  changing  the  public  sentiment.  Such  a 
motive,  on  a  question  so  long  agitated,  and  so  beset  with  feelings  of 
prejudice  and  interest,  would  argue,  on  my  part,  an  insufferable  vanity, 
and  a  profound  ignorance  of  the  human  heart.  To  avoid  as  far  as  pos 
sible  the  imputation  of  either,  I  have  confined  my  statement,  on  the 
many  and  important  points  on  which  I  have  been  compelled  to  touch, 
to  a  simple  declaration  of  my  opinion,  without  advancing  any  other 
reasons  to  sustain  them  than  what  appeared  to  me  to  be  indispensable 
to  the  full  understanding  of  my  views ;  and  if  they  should,  on  any 
point,  be  thought  to  be  not  clearly  and  explicitly  developed,  it  will,  I 
trust,  be  attributed  to  my  solicitude  to  avoid  the  imputations  to  which 
I  have  alluded,  and  not  to  any  desire  to  disguise  my  sentiments,  nor  to 
the  want  of  arguments  and  illustrations  to  maintain  positions  which  so 
abound  in  both,  that  it  would  require  a  volume  to  do  them  anything 
like  justice.  I  can  only  hope  that  truths  which,  I  feel  assured,  aro 
essentially  connected  with  all  that  we  ought  to  hold  most  dear,  may 
not  be  weakened  in  the  public  estimation  by  the  imperfect  manner  in 
which  I  have  been,  by  the  object  in  view,  compelled  to  present  them. 

With  every  caution  on  my  part,  I  dare  not  hope,  in  taking  the  step 
1  have,  to  escape  the  imputation  of  improper  motives ;  though  I  have, 
without  reserve,  freely  expressed  my  opinions,  not  regarding  whether 
they  might  or  might  not  be  popular.  I  have  no  reason  to  believe  that 
they  are  such  as  will  conciliate  public  favor,  but  the  opposite,  which  I 
greatly  regret,  as  I  have  ever  placed  a  high  estimate  on  the  good 
opinion  of  my  fellow-citizens.  But,  be  that  as  it  may,  I  shall,  at  least, 


1831.]   ADDRESS  TO  THE  PEOPLE  OF  S.  CAROLINA.    187 

be  sustained  by  feelings  of  conscious  rectitude.  I  have  formed  my 
opinions  after  the  most  careful  and  deliberate  examination,  with  all 
the  aids  which  my  reason  and  experience  could  furnish ;  I  have  ex 
pressed  them  honestly  and  fearlessly,  regardless  of  their  effects  per 
sonally,  which,  however  interesting  to  me  individually,  are  of  too  little 
importance  to  be  taken  into  the  estimate,  where  the  liberty  and  hap 
piness  of  our  country  are  so  vitally  involved. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

Nullification — The  Protective  System  introduced — Act  of  1828 — Oppo 
sition  in  the  Southern  States — State  Interposition  proposed — Mr. 
Calhoun's  Views — Election  of  General  Jackson— Distribution  and 
Protection  combined — Dissolution  of  the  Cabinet — Difficulty  between 
Mr.  Calhoun  and  General  Jackson — Letter  to  Governor  Hamilton — 
Convention  in  South  Carolina — Mr.  Calhoun  elected  a  Senator  in 
Congress. 

WE  now  approach  the  most  important  and  eventful 
period  in  the  life  and  history  of  Mr.  Calhoun — the  period 
of  Nullification — in  which  the  great  battle  between 
State-rights  and  the  Consolidation  doctrines  of  the  fed 
eral  party  was  fought  on  the  floor  of  Congress.  Of  the 
former  he  was  the  especial  champion.  He  stood  forth 
as  the  prominent  advocate  of  the  cherished  principles 
of  the  old  republican  creed  ;  and  although,  in  the  opinion 
of  many,  perhaps  the  most  of  his  former  party  associates, 
he  went  beyond  what  they  supposed  the  design  and  in 
tention  of  those  by  whom  that  creed  was  originally 
formed  and  adopted,  he  defended  his  position  with  a 
zeal  that  knew  no  abatement,  and  with  a  resoluteness 
of  purpose  that  left  no  room  to  doubt  his  sincerity. 

In  the  midst  of  calumny  and  detraction  he  was  always 
calm  and  self-possessed.  Though  the  particular  object 
of  misrepresentation,  he  only  claimed  a  hearing  for  his 
opinions,  and  if  that  were  denied,  he  left  it  to  time — that 
true  touc'rstofie  ,M  merit  in  men  and  in  things — to  test 


1824-32.]      THE  PROTECTIVE  SYSTEM.  189 

their  correctness  and  their  importance.  Torrents  of 
obloquy  and  abuse  were  poured  upon  him  without  stint 
or  favor ;  yet,  like  Galileo  exclaiming  in  the  midst  of 
his  persecutors,  indignant  at  his  renunciation  of  the 
Copernican  system,  "  E  pur  si  muove  /"* — so  he  main 
tained,  in  and  through  all,  that  the  truth  and  the  right 
were  on  his  side. 

The  Nullification  controversy,  as  it  has  been  termed, 
grew  out  of  the  system  of  high  protective  duties  long 
contended  for  by  the  manufacturing  interest  and  the 
friends  of  the  American  system,  and  finally  established 
by  the  act  of  1828.  By  the  act  of  1816,  a  reduction  of 
five  per  cent,  on  woollen  and  cotton  goods  was  made  in 
1819  ;  and  the  protectionists  forthwith  commenced  their 
efforts  to  procure  a  modification  of  the  law  more  favor 
able  to  their  interests.  Their  exertions  were  continued 
from  year  to  year,  till  they  were  ultimately  crowned 
with  success,  through  the  efforts,  in  great  part,  of  Mr. 
Adams  and  Mr.  Clay.  The  act  of  1816  went  beyond 
the  true  revenue  limit,  but  so  long  as  the  policy  was 
merely  to  foster  and  build  up  domestic  manufactures, 
and  while  the  public  debt  remained  unpaid,  Mr.  Cal- 
houn,  and  others  who  entertained  similar  views,  were 
content  not  to  insist  upon  a  reduction  of  the  duties  to 
the  revenue  standard.  The  debt  must  be  provided  for, 
and  this,  it  was  probable,  would  absorb  the  surplus  of 
revenue  for  a  long  time  to  come. 

In  1824,  the  protectionists  procured  the  passage  of 
the  act  of  that  year  increasing  the  profits  of  certain 
branches  of  manufactures  already  established,  and  offer 
ing  great  inducements  for  the  establishment  of  others. 
*  "And  yet,  it  moves  1" 


190  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32 

Three  years  later — at  the  session  of  1826-7 — "  the 
woollens'  bill,"  designed  almost  exclusively  for  the  bene 
fit  of  the  manufacturers,  was  brought  before  Congress. 
Public  attention  was  now  fully  aroused  to  the  proceed 
ings  of  the  manufacturers,  and  various  interests  appear 
ed  in  the  field,  each  contending  for  a  share  of  the  bene 
fits  to  be  derived  from  a  high  protective  tariff.  The 
doctrine  of  temporary  protection,  partially  forgotten  in 
1824,  was  now  to  be  entirely  abandoned,  and  favoritism 
substituted  for  encouragement.  The  manufacturers  of 
the  Eastern  states,  the  iron  manufacturers  in  Pennsyl 
vania  and  New  Jersey,  and  the  producers  of  wool  and 
hemp  in  the  Northern  and  Western  states  generally, 
were  all  earnestly  enlisted  in  favor  of  a  high  tariff,  but 
their  interests  were  so  often  found  to  be  conflicting,  that 
harmony  of  action  could  not  be  secured. 

Political  considerations  at  length  entered  into  the 
controversy.  The  growing  popularity  of  General  Jack 
son  filled  the  friends  of  Mr.  Adams  with  alarm,  and 
when  it  was  seen  how  many  powerful  interests  at  the 
north  were  arrayed  in  favor  of  a  high  tariff,  an  effort 
was  made  to  secure  their  support  in  the  approaching 
canvass,  for  without  their  assistance  it  was  certain  that 
the  administration  would  not  be  sustained.  A  conven 
tion  of  the  advocates  of  a  protective  tariff  was  therefore 
called  and  held  at  Harrisburg,  in  July,  1827,  at  which  a 
system  of  high  duties  was  fixed  upon,  which  was  satis 
factory  to  all  the  manufacturing  interests,  but  not  ac 
ceptable  to  the  agricultural  friends  of  protection.  The 
supporters  of  Mr.  Adams  now  counted  with  great  con 
fidence  on  the  election  of  their  candidate,  for,  said  they, 
"  if  the  friends  of  General  Jackson  in  the  tariff  states 


1824-32.]  BILL    OF    ABOMINATIONS.  191 

oppose  the  Harrisburg  plan,  the  electoral  votes  of  those 
states  will  be  lost  to  him,  and  his  defeat  must  then  cer 
tainly  follow ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  support 
the  plan,  the  southern  and  south-western  states  will  not 
vote  for  him  unless  he  disavows  the  proceedings  of  his 
friends  at  the  north." 

But  the  friends  of  General  Jackson  were  not  so  easi 
ly  entrapped.  They  elected  their  speaker  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  at  the  session  of  1827-8,  and  obtain 
ed  a  majority  on  the  committee  on  manufactures.  A 
bill  was  then  prepared,  calculated  to  favor  the  wool  and 
hemp  growers  and  to  satisfy  the  iron  manufacturers, 
but  not  affording  the  desired  protection  to  the  manufac 
turers  of  woollen  and  cotton  goods,  though  it  was  after 
ward  arranged  so  as  to  be  more  agreeable  to  them.  In 
this  contest  for  political  power,  the  great  principles  of 
truth  and  justice  were  disregarded  and  the  interests  of 
the  staple  states  at  the  south  completely  overlooked. 
After  a  long  struggle  the  act  of  1828  was  passed  by  the 
votes  of  nearly  all  the  friends  of  a  high  protective  sys 
tem  in  Congress.  This  bill  was  fitly  termed  by  one  of 
its  authors  "  a  great  error,"  and  by  a  leading  advocate 
of  protection  for  the  sake  of  protection,  "  a  bill  of  abom 
inations."  It  imposed  a  tariff  of  duties  averaging  nearly 
fifty  per  cent,  on  the  imports,  and  considerations  of 
revenue  had  very  little  to  do  with  the  manner  in  which 
it  was  formed,  or  with  its  passage. 

Only  three  representatives  from  the  southern  states, 
with  the  exception  of  the  whole  delegation  from  Ken 
tucky,  who  either  supported  the  American  System  of 
Mr.  Clay  or  were  influenced  by  the  protection  given  to 
hemp,  voted  for  the  act  of  1828.  Its  passage  elicited 


192  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

a  general  expression  of  indignation  in  the  Southern 
states,  and  most  of  their  legislatures  adopted  strong 
resolutions  condemning  it  in  unqualified  terms  as  being 
unjust,  oppressive,  and  unconstitutional. 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  now  regarded  with  almost  filial  af 
fection  and  reverence  by  the  citizens  of  his  native  state, 
and  on  his  return  home  at  the  close  of  the  session,  he 
was  visited  by  a  number  of  leading  and  influential  men, 
and  the  question  was  repeatedly  propounded  to  him — 
what  must  be  done  ?  His  reply  was,  that  they  must  not 
hazard  the  election  of  General  Jackson,  upon  whom  he 
relied  to  counteract  the  dangerous  tendencies  of  the 
times,  and  it  was  better  to  wait  and  see  whether  his  ad 
ministration  would  not  reduce  the  duties  to  the  revenue 
standard  before  the  public  debt  was  paid,  or,  at  least, 
take  the  necessary  steps  to  secure  that  reduction  when 
ever  it  should  be  finally  discharged.  But  if  they  were 
disappointed,  then  he  advised  that  the  unconstitutional 
laws  should  be  resisted,  and  that  a  resort  should  be  had 
to  state  interposition,  or,  in  other  words,  nullification. 

Resistance  had  previously  been  recommended,  at  a 
public  meeting  of  the  citizens  of  Colleton  district  held 
in  June,  1828,  and  at  other  gatherings  of  the  people 
similar  sentiments  were  freely  avowed.  Mr.  Calhoun 
was  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  nullification  was  the  right 
ful  remedy,  but  his  advice  of  forbearance  was  followed 
by  his  friends.  He  consented,  however,  to  give  ex 
pression  to  his  views,  and  at  the  request  of  a  member 
of  the  legislature,  prepared  a  paper  exposing  the  ob 
jectionable  features  of  the  act  of  1828  and  the  injurious 
effects  which  must  result  from  it,  and  pointing  out  the 
remedy  for  the  evil.  Five  thousand  copies  of  this  paper 


'  32.]        NULLIFICATION    RECOMMENDED.  193 

were  ordered  to  be  printed  by  the  legislature,  which  met 
in  December,  1828,  under  the  title  of  "  The  South  Caro 
lina  Exposition  and  Protest  on  the  subject  of  the  Tariff." 
The  legislature  then  contented  itself  with  passing  a  res 
olution  declaring  the  tariff  acts  of  Congress  for  the 
protection  of  domestic  manufactures  unconstitutional, 
and  that  they  ought  to  be  resisted,  and  inviting  other 
states  to  cooperate  with  South  Carolina  in  measures  of 
resistance.  By  this  legislature,  also,  electors  were 
chosen  who  gave  the  vote  of  the  state  to  General  Jack 
son  and  Mr.  Calhoun. 

Time  wore  on.  General  Jackson  was  inaugurated, 
but  no  relief  came.  The  influence  of  the  tariff  friends 
of  the  administration  was  controlling,  and  the  president 
expressed  the  opinion  that  no  satisfactory  adjustment  of 
the  tariff  could  be  made,  which  would  not  leave  a  large 
annual  surplus  beyond  what  was  required  by  the  govern 
ment  for  its  current  service,  wherefore  he  recommended 
the  adoption  of  some  plan  for  its  distribution  or  appor 
tionment  among  the  states,  to  be  expended  on  objects 
of  internal  improvement.*  This  recommendation  ap 
peared  to  Mr.  Calhoun  to  be  an  aggravation  of  the 
original  cause  of  complaint,  and  he  could  see  nothing  in 
the  scheme  of  distribution  but  a  premium  and  an  in 
ducement  to  the  friends  of  a  high  protective  tariff  to 
persist  in  maintaining  the  system  which  they  had  fas 
tened  upon  the  country.  He  viewed  it  as  a  bribe  to 
the  states,  to  secure  their  support  of  the  system  as  the 
fixed  and  settled  policy  of  the  national  government. 

Meanwhile  the  friendly  relations  previously  existing 
between  General  Jackson  and  Mr.  Calhoun  had  been 
*  Annual  Messages  of  1829  and  18SO. 
9 


194  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32 

interrupted.  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  secretary  of  state, 
and  both  he  and  Mr.  Calhoun  were  looked  upon  as  can 
didates  for  the  succession.  Their  respective  friends  in 
the  cabinet  became  discontented  with  each  other ;  the 
bad  feelings  which  had  been  engendered,  were  increased 
by  difficulties  between  their  families,  and  by  the  absence 
of  harmony  of  opinion  in  regard  to  the  tariff,  and  finally 
ended  in  the  resignation  of  all  the  secretaries  and  the 
attorney-general,  and  the  construction  of  an  entire 
new  cabinet.  This  took  place  in  the  spring  of  1831, 
and  from  that  time  Mr.  Calhoun  was  regarded  as  one 
of  the  opposers  of  the  administration.  He  and  General 
Jackson  were  probably  too  much  alike  in  disposition 
long  to  agree  cordially  together,  and  the  feelings  of  ani 
mosity  cherished  by  the  latter  were  much  heightened 
by  the  disclosure  to  him,  about  this  time,  of  the  fact 
that  Mr.  Calhoun,  as  a  member  of  Mr.  Monroe's  cabinet, 
had  advised  that  he  should  be  punished  or  reprimanded 
for  his  course  during  the  Seminole  campaign,  in  the 
execution  of  Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister.  Each  possess 
ed  an  iron  will,  and  each  had  inherited  many  of  the 
traits  peculiar  to  their  common  ancestry. 

It  was  impossible  that  the  public  action  of  Mr.  Cal 
houn  should  not  be  affected  by  this  change  in  his  per 
sonal  and  political  relations,  and  it  may  sometimes  have 
so  far  influenced  him  as  to  bias  his  views  and  feelings  in 
many  particulars.  Shortly  after  his  resignation  of  the 
office  of  Secretary  of  State  Mr.  Van  Buren  was  nom 
inated  minister  to  England,  and  at  the  session  of  1831— 
32,  he  was  rejected  in  the  Senate  by  the  casting  vote 
of  the  vice-president,  Mr.  Calhoun,  who  thought  that 
the  instructions  of  the  late  secretary  to  Mr.  Me  Lane, 


1824-32.]   LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  HAMILTON.       195 

then  minister  to  England,  in  regard  to  the  West  India 
trade,  were  not  consistent  with  the  dignity  of  the  coun 
try,  inasmuch  as  they  proposed  an  apology,  as  he  thought, 
for  the  acts  of  the  previous  administration. 

In  the  mean  time,  Mr.  Calhoun  had  complied  with 
the  importunities  of  his  numerous  friends  in  South  Caro 
lina,  and  issued  the  address  heretofore  given,  dated  at 
Fort  Hill,  in  July,  1831.  This  address  was  followed  by 
the  annexed  letter  to  Governor  Hamilton,  which  ap 
peared  in  the  ensuing  year  : 

LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON. 

FORT  HILL,  August  28th,  1832. 

MY  DEAR  SIR — I  have  received  your  note  of  the  31st  July,  request 
ing  me  to  give  you  a  fuller  development  of  my  views  than  that  con 
tained  in  my  address  last  summer,  on  the  right  of  a  state  to  defend 
her  reserved  powers  against  the  encroachments  of  the  General  Gov 
ernment. 

As  fully  occupied  as  my  time  is,  were  it  doubly  so,  the  quarter  from 
which  the  request  comes,  with  my  deep  conviction  of  the  vital  impor 
tance  of  the  subject,  would  exact  a  compliance. 

No  one  can  be  more  sensible  than  I  am  that  the  address  of  last  sum 
mer  fell  far  short  of  exhausting  the  subject.  It  was,  in  fact,  intended 
as  a  simple  statement  of  my  views.  I  felt  that  the  independence  and 
candor  which  ought  to  distinguish  one  occupying  a  high  public  station, 
imposed  a  duty  on  me  to  meet  the  call  for  my  opinion  by  a  frank  and 
full  avowal  of  my  sentiments,  regardless  of  consequences.  To  fulfil 
this  duty,  and  not  to  discuss  the  subject,  was  the  object  of  the  address. 
But,  in  making  these  preliminary  remaVks,  I  do  not  intend  to  prepare 
you  to  expect  a  full  discussion  on  the  present  occasion.  What  I  pro 
pose  is,  to  touch  some  of  the  more  prominent  points  that  have  received 
less  of  the  public  attention  than  their  importance  seems  to  me  to  de 
mand. 

Strange  as  the  assertion  may  appear,  it  is,  nevertheless,  true,  that 
the  great  difficulty  in  determining  whether  a  state  has  the  right  to  de- 
<end  her  reserved  powers  against  the  General  Government,  or,  in  fact, 


196  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

any  right  at  all  beyond  those  of  a  mere  corporation,  is  to  bring  the 
public  rnind  to  realize  plain  historical  facts  connected  with  the  origin 
and  formation  of  the  government.  Till  they  are  fully  understood,  it 
is  impossible  that  a  correct  and  just  view  can  be  taken  of  the  subject. 
In  this  connection,  the  first  and  most  important  point  is  to  ascertain 
distinctly  who  are  the  real  authors  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States — whose  powers  created  it — whose  voice  clothed  it  with  au 
thority  ;  and  whose  agent  the  government  it  formed  in  reality  is.  At 
this  point,  I  commence  the  execution  of  the  task  which  your  request 
has  imposed. 

The  formation  and  adoption  of  the  Constitution  are  events  so  recent, 
and  all  the  connected  facts  so  fully  attested,  that  it  would  seem  im 
possible  that  there  should  be  the  least  uncertainty  in  relation  to  them ; 
and  yet,  judging  by  what  is  constantly  heard  and  seen,  there  are  few 
subjects  on  which  the  public  opinion  is  more  confused.  The  most  in 
definite  expressions  are  habitually  used  in  speaking  of  them.  Some 
times  it  is  said  that  the  Constitution  was  made  by  the  states,  and  at 
others,  as  if  in  contradistinction,  by  the  people,  without  distinguishing 
between  the  two  very  different  meanings  which  may  be  attached  to 
those  general  expressions ;  and  this,  not  in  ordinary  conversation,  but 
in  grave  discussions  before  deliberative  bodies,  and  in  judicial  investi 
gations,  where  the  greatest  accuracy  on  so  important  a  point  might  be 
expected ;  particularly  as  one  or  the  other  meaning  is  intended,  con 
clusions  the  most  opposite  must  follow,  not  only  in  reference  to  the 
subject  of  this  communication,  but  as  to  the  nature  and  character  of 
our  political  system.  By  a  state  may  be  meant  either  the  government 
of  a  state  or  the  people,  as  forming  a  separate  and  independent  com 
munity  ;  and  by  the  people,  either  the  American  people  taken  collec 
tively,  as  forming  one  great  community,  or  as  the  people  of  the  several 
states,  forming,  as  above  stated,  separate  and  independent  communi 
ties.  These  distinctions  are  essential  in  the  inquiry.  If  by  the  people 
be  meant  the  people  collectively,  and  not  the  people  of  the  several 
states  taken  separately ;  and  if  it  be  true,  indeed,  that  the  Constitution 
is  the  work  of  the  American  people  collectively  ;  if  it  originated  with 
them,  and  derives  its  authority  from  their  will,  then  there  is  an  end  of 
the  argument.  The  right  claimed  for  a  state  of  defending  her  reserved 
powers  against  the  General  Government  would  be  an  absurdity.  View 
ing  the  American  people  collectively  as  the  source  of  political  power, 
the  rights  of  the  states  would  be  mere  concessions — concessions  from 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  197 

the  common  majority,  and  to  be  revoked  by  them  with  the  same  facility 
that  they  were  granted.  The  states  would,  on  this  supposition,  bear  to 
the  Union  the  same  relation  that  counties  do  to  the  states  ;  and  it 
would,  in  that  case,  be  just  as  preposterous  to  discuss  the  right  of  in 
terposition,  on  the  part  of  a  state,  against  the  General  Government,  as 
that  of  the  counties  against  the  states  themselves.  That  a  large 
portion  of  the  people  of  the  United  States  thus  regard  the  relation  be 
tween  the  state  and  the  General  Government,  including  many  wjio  call 
themselves  the  friends  of  State-rights  and  opponents  of  consolidation, 
can  scarcely  be  doubted,  as  it  is  only  on  that  supposition  it  can  be  ex 
plained  that  so  many  of  that  description  should  denounce  the  doctrine 
for  which  the  state  contends  as  so  absurd.  But,  fortunately,  the  sup 
position  is  entirely  destitute  of  truth.  So  far  from  the  Constitution 
being  the  work  of  the  American  people  collectively,  no  such  political 
body  either  now,  or  ever  did,  exist.  In  that  character  the  people  of 
this  country  never  performed  a  single  political  act,  nor,  indeed,  can, 
without  an  entire  revolution  in  all  our  political  relations. 

I  challenge  an  instance.  From  the  beginning,  and  in  all  the  changes 
of  political  existence  through  which  we  have  passed,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  been  united  as  forming  political  communities,  and 
not  as  individuals.  Even  in  the  first  stage  of  existence,  they  formed 
distinct  colonies,  independent  of  each  other,  and  politically  united  only 
through  the  British  crown.  In  their  first  imperfect  union,  for  the  pur 
pose  of  resisting  the  encroachments  of  the  mother-country,  they  united  as 
distinct  political  communities  ;  and,  passing  from  their  colonial  condition, 
in  the  act  announcing  their  independence  to  the  world,  they  declared 
themselves,  by  name  and  enumeration,  free  and  independent  states.  In 
that  character,  they  formed  the  old  confederation  ;  and,  when  it  was  pro 
posed  to  supersede  the  articles  of  the  confederation  by  the  present  Con 
stitution,  they  met  in  convention  as  states,  acted  and  voted  as  states ; 
and  the  Constitution,  when  formed,  was  submitted  for  ratification  to  the 
people  of  the  several  states:  it  was  ratified  by  them  as  states,  each 
state  for  itself;  each  by  its  ratification  binding  its  own  citizens;  the 
parts  thus  separately  binding  themselves,  and  not  the  whole  parts ;  to 
which,  if  it  be  added,  that  it  is  declared  in  the  preamble  of  the  Consti 
tution  to  be  ordained  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and  in  the 
article  of  ratification,  when  ratified,  it  is  declared  "  to  be  binding  between 
the  states  so  ratifying"  The  conclusion  is  inevitable,  that  the  Constitu 
tion  is  the  work  of  the  people  of  the  states,  considered  as  separate  and 


198  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

independent  political  communities ;  that  they  are  its  authors — their 
power  created  it,  their  voice  clothed  it  with  authority — that  the  govern 
ment  formed  is,  in  reality,  their  agent ;  and  that  the  Union,  of  which 
the  Constitution  is  the  bond,  is  a  union  of  states,  and  not  of  individuals. 
No  one,  who  regards  his  character  for  intelligence  and  truth,  has  ever 
ventured  directly  to  deny  facts  so  certain  ;  but  while  they  are  too  certain 
for  denial,  they  are  also  too  conclusive  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  the  states 
for  admission.  The  usual  course  has  been  adopted — to  elude  what  can 
neither  be  denied  nor  admitted ;  and  never  has  the  device  been  more 
successfully  practised.  By  confounding  states  with  state  governments, 
and  the  people  of  the  states  with  the  American  people  collectively — 
things,  as  it  regards  the  subject  of  this  communication,  totally  dissimilar, 
as  much  so  as  a  triangle  and  a  square — facts  of  themselves  perfectly 
certain  and  plain,  and  which,  when  well  understood,  must  lead  to  a  cor 
rect  conception  of  the  subject,  have  been  involved  in  obscurity  and 
mystery. 

I  will  next  proceed  to  state  some  of  the  results  which  necessarily 
follow  from  the  facts  which  have  been  established. 

The  first,  and,  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  this  communication,  the 
most  important,  is,  that  there  is  no  direct  and  immediate  connection  be 
tween  the  individual  citizens  of  a  state  and  the  General  Government. 
The  relation  between  them  is  through  the  state.  The  Union  is  a  union 
of  states  as  communities,  and  not  a  union  of  individuals.  As  members 
of  a  state,  her  citizens  were  originally  subject  to  no  control  but  that  of 
the  state,  and  could  be  subject  to  no  other,  except  by  the  act  of  the 
state  itself.  The  Constitution  was,  accordingly,  submitted  to  the  states 
for  their  separate  ratification ;  and  it  was  only  by  the  ratification  of  the 
state  that  its  citizens  became  subject  to  the  control  of  the  General 
Government.  The  ratification  of  any  other,  or  all  the  other  states, 
•without  its  own,  could  create  no  connection  between  them  and  the  Gen 
eral  Government,  nor  impose  on  them  the  slightest  obligation.  "With 
out  the  ratification  of  their  own  state,  they  would  stand  in  the  same  re 
lation  to  the  General  Government  as  do  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  any 
foreign  state ;  and  we  find  the  citizens  of  North  Carolina  and  Rhode 
Island  actually  bearing  that  relation  to  the  government  for  some  time 
after  it  went  into  operation ;  these  states  having,  in  the  first  instance, 
declined  to  ratify.  Nor  had  the  act  of  any  individual  the  least  influence 
in  subjecting  him  to  the  control  of  the  General  Government,  except  as 
it  might  influence  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution  by  his  own  state 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  199 

"Whether  subject  to  its  control  or  not,  depended  wholly  on  the  act  of 
the  state.  His  dissent  had  not  the  least  weight  against  the  assent  of 
his  state,  nor  his  assent  against  its  dissent.  It  follows,  as  a  necessary 
consequence,  that  the  act  of  ratification  bound  the  state  as  a  community, 
as  is  expressly  declared  in  the  article  of  the  Constitution  above  quoted, 
and  not  the  citizens  of  the  state  as  individuals  :  the  latter  being  bound 
through  their  state,  and  in  consequence  of  the  ratification  of  the  former. 
Another,  and  a  highly  important  consequence,  as  it  regards  the  sub 
ject  under  investigation,  follows  with  equal  certainty  :  that,  on  a  ques 
tion  whether  a  particular  power  exercised  by  the  General  Government 
be  granted  by  the  Constitution,  it  belongs  to  the  state  as  a  member  of 
the  Union,  in  her  sovereign  capacity  in  convention,  to  determine  defini 
tively;  as  far  as  her  citizens  are  concerned,  the  extent  of  the  obligation 
which  she  contracted;  and  if,  in  her  opinion,  the  act  exercising  the 
power  be  unconstitutional,  to  declare  it  null  and  void,  which  declaration 
would  be  obligatory  on  her  citizens.  In  coming  to  this  conclusion,  it 
may  be  proper  to  remark,  to  prevent  misrepresentation,  that  I  do  not 
claim  for  a  state  the  right  to  abrogate  an  act  of  the  General  Govern 
ment.  It  is  the  Constitution  that  annuls  an  unconstitutional  act.  Such 
an  act  is  of  itself  void  and  of  no  effect.  What  I  claim  is  the  right  of 
the  state,  as  far  as  its  citizens  are  concerned,  to  declare  the  extent  of  the 
obligation,  and  that  such  declaration  is  binding  on  them — a  right,  when 
limited  to  its  citizens,  flowing  directly  from  the  relation  of  the  state  to 
the  General  Government  on  the  one  side,  and  its  citizens  on  the  other, 
as  already  explained,  and  resting  on  the  most  plain  and  solid  reasons. 

Passing  over,  what  of  itself  might  be  considered  conclusive,  tho 
obvious  principle,  that  it  belongs  to  the  authority  which  imposed  the 
obligation  to  declare  its  extent,  as  far  as  those  are  concerned  on  whom 
the  obligation  is  placed,  I  shall  present  a  single  argument,  which  of 
itself  is  decisive.  I  have  already  shown  that  there  is  no  immediate 
connection  between  the  citizens  of  a  state  and  the  General  Government, 
and  that  the  relation  between  them  is  through  the  state.  I  have  also 
shown  that,  whatever  obligations  were  imposed  on  the  citizens,  were 
imposed  by  the  act  of  the  state  ratifying  the  Constitution.  A  similar 
act  by  the  same  authority,  made  with  equal  solemnity,  declaring  the 
extent  of  the  obligation,  must,  as  far  as  they  are  concerned,  be  of  equal 
authority.  I  speak,  of  course,  on  the  supposition  that  the  right  has  not 
been  transferred,  as  it  will  hereafter  be  shown  that  it  has  not.  A  citi 
zen  would  have  no  more  right  to  question  the  one  than  he  would  have 


200  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUtf.  [1824— 32 

the  other  declaration.  They  rest  on  the  same  authority :  and  as  he  was 
bound  by  the  declaration  of  his  state  assenting  to  the  Constitution, 
•whether  he  assented  or  dissented,  so  would  he  be  equally  bound  by  a 
declaration  declaring  the  extent  of  that  assent,  whether  opposed  to,  or 
in  favor  of,  such  declaration.  In  this  conclusion  I  am  supported  by 
analogy.  The  case  of  a  treaty  between  sovereigns  is  strictly  analogous. 
There,  as  in  this  case,  the  state  contracts  for  the  citizen  or  subject ; 
there,  as  in  this,  the  obligation  is  imposed  by  the  state,  and  is  indepen 
dent  of  his  will ;  and  there,  as  in  this,  the  declaration  of  the  state,  deter 
mining  the  extent  of  the  obligation  contracted,  is  obligatory  on  him,  as 
much  so  as  the  treaty  itself. 

Haying  now,  I  trust,  established  the  very  important  point  that  the 
declaration  of  a  state,  as  to  the  extent  of  the  power  granted,  is  obliga 
tory  on  its  citizens,  I  shall  next  proceed  to  consider  the  effects  of  such 
declarations  in  reference  to  the  General  Government ;  a  question  which 
necessarily  involves  the  consideration  of  the  relation  between  it  and  the 
states.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  people  of  the  states,  acting  as  dis 
tinct  and  independent  communities,  aje  the  authors  of  the  Constitution, 
and  that  the  General  Government  was  organized  and  ordained  by  them 
to  execute  its  powers.  The  government,  then,  with  all  its  departments, 
is,  in  fact,  the  agent  of  the  states,  constituted  to  execute  their  joint  will, 
as  expressed  in  the  Constitution. 

In  using  the  term  agent,  I  do  not  intend  to  derogate  in  any  degree 
from  its  character  as  a  government.  It  is  as  truly  and  properly  a  gov 
ernment  as  are  the  state  governments  themselves.  I  have  applied  it 
simply  because  it  strictly  belongs  to  the  relation  between  the  General  Gov 
ernment  and  the  states,  as,  in  fact,  it  does  also  to  that  between  a  state 
and  its  own  government.  Indeed,  according  to  our  theory,  governments 
are  in  their  nature  but  trusts,  and  those  appointed  to  administer  them 
trustees  or  agents  to  execute  the  trust  powers.  The  sovereignty  re 
sides  elsewhere — in  the  people,  not  in  the  government ;  and  with  us, 
the  people  mean  the  people  of  the  several  states  originally  formed  into 
thirteen  distinct  and  independent  communities,  and  now  into  twenty- 
four.  Politically  speaking,  in  reference  to  our  own  system,  there  are 
no  other  people.  The  General  Government,  as  well  as  those  of  the 
states,  is  but  the  organ  of  their  power :  the  latter,  that  of  their  re 
spective  states,  through  which  are  exercised  separately  that  portion  of 
power  not  delegated  by  the  Constitution,  and  in  the  exercise  of  which 
each  state  has  a  local  and  peculiar  interest ;  the  former,  the  joint  orgaa 


1824-32.]   LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  HAMILTON.       201 

of  all  the  states  confederated  into  one  general  community,  and  through 
•which  they  jointly  and  concurringly  exercise  the  delegated  powers,  in 
which  all  have  a  common  interest.  Thus  viewed,  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  with  the  government  it  created,  is  truly  and  strictly 
the  Constitution  of  each  state,  as  much  so  as  its  own  particular  Consti 
tution  and  government,  ratified  by  the  same  authority,  in  the  same 
mode,  and  having,  as  far  as  its  citizens  are  concerned,  its  powers  and 
obligations  from  the  same  source,  differing  only  in  the  aspect,  under 
which  I  am  considering  the  subject,  in  the  plir/hted faith  of  the  state  to 
its  co-states,  and  of  which,  as  far  as  its  citizens  are  considered,  the 
state,  in  the  last  resort,  is  the  exclusive  judge. 

Such,  then,  is  the  relation  between  the  state  and  General  Govern 
ment,  in  whatever  light  we  may  consider  the  Constitution,  whether  as 
a  compact  between  the  states,  or  of  the  nature  of  the  legislative  en 
actment  by  the  joint  and  concurring  authority  of  the  states  in  their 
high  sovereignty.  In  whatever  light  it  may  be  viewed,  I  hold  it  as 
necessarily  resulting,  that,  in  the  case  of  a  power  disputed  between 
them,  the  government,  as  the  agent,  has  no  right  to  enforce  its  con 
struction  against  the  construction  of  the  state  as  one  of  the  sovereign 
parties  to  the  Constitution,  any  more  than  the  state  government  would 
have  against  the  people  of  the  state  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  the 
relation  being  the  same  between  them.  That  such  would  be  the  case 
between  agent  and  principal  in  the  ordinary  transactions  of  life,  no  one 
will  doubt,  nor  will  it  be  possible  to  assign  a  reason  why  it  is  not  as 
applicable  to  the  case  of  government  as  to  that  of  individuals.  The 
principle,  in  fact,  springs  from  the  relation  itself,  and  is  applicable  to  it 
in  all  its  forms  and  characters.  It  may,  however,  be  proper  to  notice 
a  distinction  between  the  case  of  a  single  principal  and  his  agent,  and 
that  of  several  principals  and  their  joint  agent,  which  might  otherwise 
cause  some  confusion.  In  both  cases,  as  between  the  agent  and  a  prin 
cipal,  the  construction  of  the  principal,  whether  he  be  a  single  principal 
or  one  of  several,  is  equally  conclusive;  but,  in  the  latter  case,  both 
the  principal  and  the  agent  bear  relation  to  the  other  principals,  which 
must  be  taken  into  the  estimate,  in  order  to  understand  fully  all  the 
results  which  may  grow  out  of  the  contest  for  power  between  them. 
Though  the  construction  of  the  principal  is  conclusive  against  the  joint 
agent,  as  between  them,  such  is  not  the  case  between  him  and  his  as 
sociates.  They  both  have  an  equal  right  of  construction,  and  it  would 
be  the  duty  of  the  agent  to  bring  the  subject  before  the  principal  to  be 
9* 


202  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

adjusted,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  instrument  of  association,  and 
of  the  principal  to  submit  to  such  adjustment.  In  such  cases  the  con 
tract  itself  is  the  law,  which  must  determine  the  relative  rights  and 
powers  of  the  parties  to  it.  The  General  Government  is  a  case  of 
joint  agency — the  joint  agent  of  the  twenty-four  sovereign  states.  It 
would  be  its  duty,  according  to  the  principles  established  in  such  cases, 
instead  of  attempting  to  enforce  its  construction  of  its  powers  against 
that  of  the  states,  to  bring  the  subject  before  the  states  themselves,  in 
the  only  form  which,  according  to  the  provision  of  the  Constitution,  it 
can  be — by  a  proposition  to  amend,  in  the  manner  prescribed  in  the  in 
strument,  to  be  acted  on  by  them  in  the  only  mode  they  can,  by  ex 
pressly  granting  or  withholding  the  contested  power.  Against  this 
conclusion  there  can  be  raised  but  one  objection, — that  the  states  have 
surrendered  or  transferred  the  right  in  question.  If  such  be  the  fact, 
there  ought  to  be  no  difficulty  in  establishing  it.  The  grant  of  the 
powers  delegated  is  contained  in  a  written  instrument,  drawn  up  with 
great  care,  and  adopted  with  the  utmost  deliberation.  It  provides  that 
the  powers  not  granted  are  reserved  to  the  states  and  the  people.  If 
it  be  surrendered,  let  the  grant  be  shown,  and  the  controversy  will  be 
terminated  ;  and,  surely,  it  ought  to  be  shown,  plainly  and  clearly 
shown,  before  the  states  are  asked  to  admit  what,  if  true,  would  not 
only  divest  them  of  a  right  which,  under  all  its  forms,  belongs  to  the 
principal  over  his  agent,  unless  surrendered,  but  which  cannot  be  sur 
rendered  without  in  effect,  and  for  all  practical  purposes,  reversing  the 
relation  between  them  ;  putting  the  agent  in  the  place  of  the  princi 
pal,  and  the  principal  in  that  of  the  agent ;  and  which  would  degrade 
the  states  from  the  high  and  sovereign  condition  which  they  have  ever 
held,  under  every  form  of  their  existence,  to  be  mere  subordinate  and 
dependent  corporations  of  the  government  of  its  own  creation.  But, 
instead  of  showing  any  such  grant,  not  a  provision  can  be  found  in  the 
Constitution  authorizing  the  General  Government  to  exercise  any  con 
trol  whatever  over  a  state  by  force,  by  veto,  by  judicial  process,  or  in 
any  other  form — a  most  important  omission,  designed,  and  not  acciden 
tal,  and,  as  will  be  shown  in  the  course  of  these  remarks,  omitted  by 
the  dictates  of  the  profoundest  wisdom. 

The  journal  and  proceedings  of  the  Convention  which  formed  the 
Constitution  afford  abundant  proof  that  there  was  in  the  body  a  pow 
erful  party,  distinguished  for  talents  and  influence,  intent  on  obtaining, 
for  the  General  Government,  a  grant  of  the  very  power  in  question, 


1824—32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  203 

and  that  they  attempted  to  effect  this  object  in  all  possible  "ways,  but 
fortunately,  without  success.  The  first  project  of  a  Constitution  sub 
mitted  to  the  Convention  (Governor  Randolph's)  embraced  a  proposi 
tion  to  grant  power  "  to  negative  all  laws  contrary,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  National  Legislature,  to  the  articles  of  the  Union,  or  any  treaty 
subsisting  under  the  authority  of  the  Union  ;  and  to  call  forth  the  force 
of  the  Union  against  any  member  of  the  Union  failing  to  fulfil  his 
duty  under  the  articles  thereof."  The  next  project  submitted  (Charles 
Pinckney's)  contained  a  similar  provision.  It  proposed,  "that  the 
Legislature  of  the  United  States  should  have  the  power  to  revise  the 
/aws  of  the  several  states  that  may  be  supposed  to  infringe  the  powers 
exclusively  delegated  by  this  Constitution  to  Congress,  and  to  negative 
and  annul  such  as  do."  The  next  was  submitted  by  Mr.  Patterson,  of 
New  Jersey,  which  provided,  "  if  any  state,  or  body  of  men  in  any 
state,  shall  oppose  or  prevent  the  carrying  into  execution  such  acts  or 
treaties"  (of  the  Union),  "  the  federal  executive  shall  be  authorized  to 
call  forth  the  powers  of  the  confederated  states,  or  so  much  thereof  as 
shall  be  necessary  to  enforce,  or  compel  the  obedience  to  such  acts,  or 
observance  of  such  treaties."  General  Hamilton's  next  succeeded, 
which  declared  "  all  laws  of  the  particular  states  contrary  to  the  Con 
stitution  or  laws  of  the  United  States,  to  be  utterly  void ;  and,  the 
better  to  prevent  such  laws  being  passed,  the  governor  or  president  of 
each  state  shall  be  appointed  by  the  General  Government,  and  shall 
have  a  negative  on  the  laws  about  to  be  passed  in  the  state  of  which 
he  is  governor  or  president." 

At  a  subsequent  period,  a  proposition  was  moved  and  referred  to  a 
committee  to  provide  that  "  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme  Court  shall 
extend  to  all  controversies  between  the  United  States  and  any  indi 
vidual  state ;"  and,  at  a  still  later  period,  it  was  moved  to  grant  power 
"  to  negative  all  laws  passed  by  the  several  states  interfering,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Legislature,  with  the  general  harmony  and  interest  of 
£he  Union,  provided  that  two  thirds  of  the  members  of  each  house 
assent  to  the  same,"  which,  after  an  ineffectual  attempt  to  commit,  was 
withdrawn. 

I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  trace  through  the  journals  of  the  Con 
tention  the  fate  of  these  various  propositions.  It  is  sufficient  that  they 
were  moved  and  failed,  to  prove  conclusively,  in  a  manner  never  to  be 
reversed,  that  the  Convention  which  framed  the  Constitution  was  op 
posed  to  granting  the  power  to  the  General  Government  in  any  form, 


204  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

through  any  of  its  departments,  legislative,  executive,  or  judicial,  to 
coerce  or  control  a  state,  though  proposed  in  all  conceivable  modes,  and 
sustained  by  the  most  talented  and  influential  members  of  the  body 
This,  one  would  suppose,  ought  to  settle  forever  the  question  of  the  sur 
render  or  transfer  of  the  power  under  consideration ;  and  such,  in  fact, 
would  be  the  case,  were  the  opinion  of  a  large  portion  of  the  community 
not  biased,  as,  in  fact,  it  is,  by  interest.  A  majority  have  almost  always 
a  direct  interest  in  enlarging  the  power  of  the  government,  and  the  in 
terested  adhere  to  power  with  a  pertinacity  which  bids  defiance  to 
truth,  though  sustained  by  evidence  as  conclusive  as  mathematical  dem 
onstration  ;  and,  accordingly,  the  advocates  of  the  powers  of  the  Gen 
eral  Government,  notwithstanding  the  impregnable  strength  of  the  proof 
to  the  contrary,  have  boldly  claimed,  on  construction,  a  power,  the  grant 
of  which  was  so  perseveringly  sought  and  so  sternly  resisted  by  the 
Convention.  They  rest  the  claim  on  the  provisions  in  the  Constitution 
which  declare  "that  this  Constitution,  and  the  laws  made  in  pursuance 
thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,"  and  that  "the  judicial 
power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity  arising  under  this 
Constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  treaties  made,  or  which 
shall  be  made,  under  their  authority." 

I  do  not  propose  to  go  into  a  minute  examination  of  these  provisions. 
They  have  been  so  frequently  and  so  ably  investigated,  and  it  has  been 
so  clearly  shown  that  they  do  not  warrant  the  assumption  of  the  power 
claimed  for  the  government,  that  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary.  I  shall, 
therefore,  confine  myself  to  a  few  detached  remarks. 

I  have  already  stated  that  a  distinct  proposition  was  made  to  confer 
the  very  power  in  controversy  on  the  Supreme  Court,  which  failed  ; 
which  of  itself  ought  to  overrule  the  assumption  of  the  power  by  con 
struction,  unless  sustained  by  the  most  conclusive  arguments ;  but  when 
it  is  added  that  this  proposition  was  moved  (20th  August)  subsequent 
to  the  period  of  adopting  the  provisions,  above  cited,  vesting  the  court 
with  its  present  powers  (18th  July),  and  that  an  effort  was  made,  at  a 
still  later  period  (23d  August),  to  invest  Congress  with  a  negative  on 
all  state  laws  which,  in  its  opinion,  might  interfere  with  the  general  in 
terest  and  harmony  of  the  Union,  the  argument  would  seem  too  con 
clusive  against  the  powers  of  the  court  to  be  overruled  by  construction 
however  strong. 

Passing  by,  however,  this,  and  also  the  objection  that  the  terms  cases 
in  law  and  equity  are  technical,  embracing  only  questions  between 


1824-32.]   LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  HAMILTON.       205 

parties  amenable  to  the  process  of  the  court,  and,  of  course,  excluding 
questions  between  the  states  and  the  General  Government — an  argu 
ment  which  has  never  been  answered — there  remains  another  objection 
perfectly  conclusive. 

The  construction  which  would  confer  on  the  Supreme  Court  the  power 
in  question,  rests  on  the  ground  that  the  Constitution  has  conferred  on 
that  tribunal  the  high  and  important  right  of  deciding  on  the  constitu 
tionality  of  laws.  That  it  possesses  this  power  I  do  not  deny,  but  I  do 
utterly  deny  that  it  is  conferred  by  the  Constitution,  either  by  the  pro 
visions  above  cited,  or  any  other.  It  is  a  power  derived  from  the  ne 
cessity  of  the  case  ;  and,  so  far  from  being  possessed  by  the  Supreme 
Court  exclusively  or  peculiarly,  it  not  only  belongs  to  every  court  of  the 
country,  high  or  low,  civil  or  criminal,  but  to  all  foreign  courts,  before 
which  a  case  may  be  brought  involving  the  construction  of  a  law  which 
may  conflict  with  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution.  The  reason  is  plain. 
Where  there  are  two  sets  of  rules  prescribed  in  reference  to  the  same 
subject,  one  by  a  higher  and  the  other  by  an  inferior  authority,  the 
judicial  tribunal  called  in  to  decide  on  the  case  must  unavoidably  deter 
mine,  should  they  conflict,  which  is  the  law  ;  and  that  necessity  compels 
it  to  decide  that  the  rule  prescribed  by  the  inferior  power,  if  in  its 
opinion  inconsistent  with  that  of  the  higher,  is  void,  be  it  a  conflict  be 
tween  the  Constitution  and  a  law,  or  between  a  charter  and  the  by-laws 
of  a  corporation,  or  any  other  higher  and  inferior  authority.  The  prin 
ciple  and  source  of  authority  are  the  same  in  all  such  cases.  Being  de 
rived  from  necessity,  it  is  restricted  within  its  limits,  and  cannot  pass 
an  inch  beyond  the  narrow  confines  of  deciding  in  a  case  before  the 
court,  and,  of  course,  between  parties  amenable  to  its  process,  excluding 
thereby  political  questions,  which  of  the  two  is,  in  reality,  the  law,  the 
act  of  Congress  or  the  Constitution,  when  on  their  face  they  are  incon 
sistent  ;  and  yet,  from  this  resulting  limited  power,  derived  from  ne 
cessity,  and  held  in  common  with  every  court  in  the  world  which,  by 
possibility,  may  take  cognizance  of  a  case  involving  the  interpretation 
of  our  Constitution  and  laws,  it  is  attempted  to  confer  on  the  Supreme 
Court  a  power  which  would  work  a  thorough  and  radical  change  in  our 
system,  and  which,  moreover,  was  positively  refused  by  the  Conven 
tion. 

The  opinion  that  the  General  Government  has  the  right  to  enforce  its 
construction  of  its  powers  against  a  state,  in  any  mode  whatever,  is,  in 
truth,  founded  on  a  fundamental  misconception  of  our  system.  At  the 


206  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1824-32. 

bottom  of  this,  and,  in  fact,  almost  every  other  misconception  as  to  the 
relation  between  the  states  and  the  General  Government,  lurks  the 
radical  error,  that  the  latter  is  a  national,  and  not,  as  in  reality  it  is,  a 
confederated  government ;  and  that  it  derives  its  powers  from  a  higher 
source  than  the  states.  There  are  thousands  influenced  by  these  im 
pressions  without  being  conscious  of  it,  and  who,  while  they  believe  them 
selves  to  be  opposed  to  consolidation,  have  infused  into  their  conception 
of  our  Constitution  almost  all  the  ingredients  which  inter  into  that  form 
of  government.  The  striking  difference  between  the  present  govern 
ment  and  that  under  the  old  confederation  (I  speak  of  governments  as 
distinct  from  constitutions)  has  mainly  contributed  to  this  dangerous  im 
pression.  But,  however  dissimilar  their  governments,  the  present  Con 
stitution  is  as  far  removed  from  consolidation,  and  is  as  strictly  and  as 
purely  a  confederation,  as  the  one  which  it  superseded. 

Like  the  old  confederation,  it  was  formed  and  ratified  by  state  au 
thority.  The  only  difference  in  this  particular  is,  that  one  was  ratified 
by  the  people  of  the  states,  and  the  other  by  the  state  governments ; 
one  forming  strictly  a  union  of  the  state  governments,  the  other  of  the 
states  themselves ;  one,  of  the  agents  exercising  the  powers  of  sove 
reignty,  and  the  other  of  the  sovereigns  themselves ;  but  both  were 
unions  of  political  bodies,  as  distinct  from  a  union  of  the  people  individ 
ually.  They  are,  indeed,  both  confederations,  but  the  present  in  a 
higher  and  purer  sense  than  that  which  it  succeeded,  just  as  the  act  of 
a  sovereign  is  higher  and  more  perfect  than  that  of  his  agent ;  and  it 
•was,  doubtless,  in  reference  to  this  difference  that  the  preamble  of  the 
Constitution,  and  the  address  of  the  Convention  laying  the  Constitution 
before  Congress,  speak  of  consolidating  and  perfecting  the  Union  ;  yet 
this  difference,  which,  while  it  elevated  the  General  Government  in  re 
lation  to  the  state  governments,  placed  it  more  immediately  in  the 
relation  of  the  creature  and  agent  of  the  states  themselves,  by  a  natural 
misconception,  has  been  the  principal  cause  of  the  impression  so  preva 
lent  of  the  inferiority  of  the  states  to  the  General  Government,  and  of 
the  consequent  right  of  the  latter  to  coerce  the  former.  Raised  from 
below  to  the  same  level  with  the  state  governments,  it  was  conceived 
to  be  placed  above  the  states  themselves. 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  conclusively  shown  that  a  state  has  a  right,  in 
her  sovereign  capacity,  in  convention,  to  declare  an  unconstitutional  act 
of  Congress  to  be  null  and  void,  and  that  such  declarations  would  be 
obligatory  on  her  citizens,  as  highly  so  as  the  Constitution  itself,  and 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  207 

conclusive  against  the  General  Government,  which  would  have  no  right 
to  enforce  its  construction  of  its  powers  against  that  of  the  state. 

I  next  propose  to  consider  the  practical  effect  of  the  exercise  of  this 
high  and  important  right — which,  as  the  great  conservative  principle 
of  our  system,  is  known  under  the  various  names  of  nullification,  inter 
position,  and  state  veto — in  reference  to  its  operation  viewed  under 
different  aspects :  nullification,  as  declaring  null  an  unconstitutional  act 
of  the  General  Government,  as  far  as  the  state  is  concerned ;  inter 
position,  as  throwing  the  shield  of  protection  between  the  citizens  of  a 
state  and  the  encroachments  of  the  Government ;  and  veto,  as  arrest 
ing  or  inhibiting  its  unauthorized  acts  within  the  limits  of  the  state. 

The  practical  effect,  if  the  right  was  fully  recognized,  would  be  plain 
and  simple,  and  has  already,  in  a  great  measure,  been  anticipated.  If 
the  state  has  a  right,  there  must,  of  necessity,  be  a  corresponding  obli 
gation  on  the  part  of  the  General  Government  to  acquiesce  in  its  exer 
cise  ;  and,  of  course,  it  would  be  its  duty  to  abandon  the  power,  at 
least  as  far  as  the  state  is  concerned,  to  compromise  the  difficulty,  or 
apply  to  the  states  themselves,  according  to  the  form  prescribed  in  the 
Constitution,  to  obtain  the  power  by  a  grant.  If  granted,  acquies 
cence,  then,  would  be  a  duty  on  the  part  of  the  state ;  and,  in  that  event, 
the  contest  would  terminate  in  converting  a  doubtful  constructive 
power  into  one  positively  granted ;  but,  should  it  not  be  granted,  no 
alternative  would  remain  for  the  General  Government  but  a  com 
promise  or  its  permanent  abandonment.  In  either  event,  the  contro 
versy  would  be  closed  and  the  Constitution  fixed :  a  result  of  the 
utmost  importance  to  the  steady  operation  of  the  government  and  the 
stability  of  the  system,  and  which  can  never  be  attained,  under  its  pres 
ent  operation,  without  the  recognition  of  the  right,  as  experience  has 
shown. 

From  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  we  have  had  but  one  con 
tinued  agitation  of  constitutional  questions  embracing  some  of  the 
most  important  powers  exercised  by  the  government ;  and  yet,  in  spite 
of  all  the  ability  and  force  of  argument  displayed  in  the  various  dis 
cussions,  backed  by  the  high  authority  claimed  for  the  Supreme  Court 
to  adjust  such  controversies,  not  a  single  constitutional  question,  of  a 
political  character,  which  has  ever  been  agitated  during  this  long 
period,  has  been  settled  in  the  public  opinion,  except  that  of  the  uncon 
stitutionally  of  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Law ;  and,  what  is  remarkable, 
that  was  settled  against  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court.  The  tend- 


208  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

ency  is  to  increase,  and  not  diminish,  this  conflict  for  power.  New 
questions  are  yearly  added  without  diminishing  the  old ;  while  the  con 
test  becomes  more  obstinate  as  the  list  increases,  and,  what  is  highly 
ominous,  more  sectional.  It  is  impossible  that  the  government  can  last 
under  this  increasing  diversity  of  opinion,  and  growing  uncertainty  as 
to  its  power  in  relation  to  the  most  important  subjects  of  legislation ; 
and  equally  so,  that  this  dangerous  state  can  terminate  without  a 
power  somewhere  to  compel,  in  effect,  the  government  to  abandon 
doubtful  constructive  powers,  or  to  convert  them  into  positive  grants 
by  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution ;  in  a  word,  to  substitute  the 
positive  grants  of  the  parties  themselves  for  the  constructive  powers 
interpolated  by  the  agents.  Nothing  short  of  this,  in  a  system  con 
structed  as  ours  is,  with  a  double  set  of  agents,  one  for  local  and  the 
other  for  general  purposes,  can  ever  terminate  the  conflict  for  power, 
or  give  uniformity  and  stability  to  its  action. 

Such  would  be  the  practical  and  happy  operation  were  the  right 
recognized  ;  but  the  case  is  far  otherwise  ;  and  as  the  right  is  not  only 
denied,  but  violently  opposed,  the  General  Government,  so  far  from 
acquiescing  in  its  exercise,  and  abandoning  the  power,  as  it  ought,  may 
endeavor,  by  all  the  means  within  its  command,  to  enforce  its  construc 
tion  against  that  of  the  state.  It  is  under  this  aspect  of  the  question 
that  I  now  propose  to  consider  the  practical  effect  of  the  exercise  of 
the  right,  with  the  view  to  determine  which  of  the  two,  the  state  or 
the  General  Government,  must  prevail  in  the  conflict ;  which  compels 
me  to  revert  to  some  of  the  grounds  already  established. 

I  have  already  shown  that  the  declaration  of  nullification  would  be 
obligatory  on  the  citizens  of  the  state,  as  much  so,  in  fact,  as  its  decla 
ration  ratifying  the  Constitution,  resting,  as  it  does,  on  the  same  basis. 
It  would  to  them  be  the  highest  possible  evidence  that  the  power  con 
tested  was  not  granted,  and,  of  course,  that  the  act  of  the  General 
Government  was  unconstitutional.  They  would  be  bound,  in  all  the 
relations  of  life,  private  and  political,  to  respect  and  obey  it ;  and,  when 
called  upon  as  jurymen,  to  render  their  verdict  accordingly,  or,  as 
judges,  to  pronounce  judgment  in  conformity  to  it.  The  right  of  jury 
trial  is  secured  by  the  Constitution  (thanks  to  the  jealous  spirit  of 
liberty,  doubly  secured  and  fortified) ;  and,  with  this  inestimable  right 
— inestimable,  not  only  as  an  essential  portion  of  the  judicial  tribunals 
of  the  country,  but  infinitely  more  so,  considered  as  a  popular,  and  still 
more,  a  local  representation,  in  that  department  of  the  government 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  209 

which,  without  it,  would  be  the  farthest  removed  from  the  control  of 
the  people,  and  a  fit  instrument  to  sap  the  foundation  of  the  system — 
with,  I  repeat,  this  inestimable  right,  it  would  be  impossible  for  the 
General  Government,  within  the  limits  of  the  state,  to  execute,  legally, 
the  act  nullified,  or  any  other  passed  with  a  view  to  enforce  it ;  while, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  state  would  be  able  to  enforce,  legally  and 
peaceably,  its  declaration  of  nullification.  Sustained  by  its  court  and 
juries,  it  would  calmly  and  quietly,  but  successfully,  meet  every  effort 
of  the  General  Government  to  enforce  its  claim  of  power.  The  result 
would  be  inevitable.  Before  the  judicial  tribunal  of  the  country,  the 
state  must  prevail,  unless,  indeed,  jury  trial  could  be  eluded  by  the 
refinement  of  the  court,  or  by  some  other  device;  which,  however, 
guarded  as  it  is  by  the  ramparts  of  the  Constitution,  would,  I  hold,  be 
impossible.  The  attempt  to  elude,  should  it  be  made,  would  itself  be 
unconstitutional ;  and,  in  turn,  would  be  annulled  by  the  sovereign 
voice  of  the  state.  Nor  would  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  Supreme 
Court,  under  the  judiciary  act,  avail  the  General  Government.  If 
taken,  it  would  but  end  in  a  new  trial,  and  that  in  another  verdict 
against  the  government ;  but  whether  it  may  be  taken,  would  be  op 
tional  with  the  state.  The  court  itself  has  decided  that  a  copy  of  the 
record  is  requisite  to  review  a  judgment  of  a  state  court,  and,  if  neces- 
cary,  the  state  would  take  the  precaution  to  prevent,  by  proper  enact 
ments,  any  means  of  obtaining  a  copy.  But  if  obtained,  what  would 
it  avail  against  the  execution  of  the  penal  enactments  of  the  state,  in 
tended  to  enforce  the  declaration  of  nullification  ?  The  judgment  of 
the  state  court  would  be  pronounced  and  executed  before  the  possibility  of 
a  reversal,  and  executed,  too,  without  responsibility  incurred  by  any  one. 

Beaten  before  the  courts,  the  General  Government  would  be  com 
pelled  to  abandon  its  unconstitutional  pretensions,  or  resort  to  force  : 
a  resort,  the  difficulty  (I  was  about  to  say,  the  impossibility)  of  which 
would  very  soon  fully  manifest  itself,  should  folly  or  madness  ever 
make  the  attempt 

In  considering  this  aspect  of  the  controversy,  I  pass  over  the  fact 
that  the  General  Government  has  no  right  to  resort  to  force  against  a 
etate — to  coerce  a  sovereign  member  of  the  Union — which,  I  trust,  I 
iiave  established  beyond  all  possible  doubt.  Let  it,  however,  be  deter 
mined  to  use  force,  and  the  difficulty  would  be  insurmountable,  unless, 
indeed,  it  be  also  determined  to  set  aside  the  Constitution,  and  to  sub 
vert  the  system  to  its  foundations. 


210  JOHN    CALPWELL    CALIIOUN.  [1824-32. 

Against  whom  would  it  be  applied  ?  Congress  has,  it  is  true,  the 
right  to  call  forth  the  militia  "  to  execute  the  laws  and  suppress  insur 
rection  ;"  but  there  would  be  no  law  resisted,  unless,  indeed,  it  be  called 
resistance  for  the  juries  to  refuse  to  find,  and  the  courts  to  render 
judgment,  in  conformity  to  the  wishes  of  the  General  Government ;  no 
insurrection  to  suppress ;  no  armed  force  to  reduce ;  not  a  sword  un 
sheathed  ;  not  a  bayonet  raised ;  none,  absolutely  none,  on  whom  force 
could  be  used,  except  it  be  on  the  unarmed  citizens  engaged  peaceably 
and  quietly  in  their  daily  occupations. 

No  one  would  be  guilty  of  treason  ("  levying  war  against  the  United 
States,  adhering  to  their  enemies,  giving  them  aid  and  comfort"),  or  any 
other  crime  made  penal  by  the  Constitution  or  the  laws  of  the  United 
States. 

To  suppose  that  force  could  be  called  in,  implies,  indeed,  a  great 
mistake,  both  as  to  the  nature  of  our  government  and  that  of  the  con 
troversy.  It  would  be  a  legal  and  constitutional  contest — a  conflict  of 
moral,  and  not  physical  force — a  trial  of  constitutional,  not  military 
power,  to  be  decided  before  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  country,  and 
not  on  the  field  of  battle.  In  such  contest,  there  would  be  no  object  for 
force,  but  those  peaceful  tribunals — nothing  on  which  it  could  be 
employed,  but  in  putting  down  courts  and  juries,  and  preventing  tho 
execution  of  judicial  process.  Leave  these  untouched,  and  all  the 
militia  that  could  be  called  forth,  backed  by  a  regular  force  of  ten  times 
the  number  of  our  small,  but  gallant  and  patriotic  army,  could  have  not 
the  slightest  effect  on  the  result  of  the  controversy ;  but  subvert  these 
by  an  armed  body,  and  you  subvert  the  very  foundation  of  this  our 
free,  constitutional,  and  legal  system  of  government,  and  rear  in  its 
place  a  military  despotism. 

Feeling  the  force  of  these  difficulties,  it  is  proposed,  with  the  view,  I 
suppose,  of  disembarrassing  the  operation,  as  much  as  possible,  of  tho 
troublesome  interference  of  courts  and  juries,  to  change  the  scene  of 
coercion  from  land  to  water;  as  if  the  government  could  have  one 
particle  more  right  to  coerce  a  state  by  water  than  by  land  ;  but,  unless 
I  am  greatly  deceived,  the  difficulty  on  that  element  will  not  be  much 
less  than  on  the  other.  The  jury  trial,  at  least  the  local  jury  trial 
(the  trial  by  the  vicinage),  may,  indeed,  be  evaded  there,  but  in  its 
place  other,  and  not  much  less  formidable,  obstacles  must  be  encoun 
tered. 

There  can  be  but  two  modes  of  coercion  resorted  to  by  water— 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON  211 

blockade  and  abolition  of  the  ports  of  entry  of  the  state,  accompanied 
by  penal  enactments,  authorizing  seizures  for  entering  the  waters  of  the 
state.  If  the  former  be  attempted,  there  will  be  other  parties  besides 
the  General  Government  and  the  state.  Blockade  is  a  belligerent 
right :  it  presupposes  a  state  of  war,  and,  unless  there  be  war  (war  in 
due  form,  as  prescribed  by  the"  Constitution),  the  order  for  blockade 
would  not  be  respected  by  other  nations  or  their  subjects.  Their 
vessels  would  proceed  directly  for  the  blockaded  port,  with  certain 
prospects  of  gain ;  if  seized  under  the  order  of  blockade,  through  the 
claim  of  indemnity  against  the  General  Government ;  and,  if  not,  by  a 
profitable  market,  without  the  exaction  of  duties. 

The  other  mode,  the  abolition  of  the  ports  of  entry  of  the  state, 
would  also  have  its  difficulties.  The  Constitution  provides  that  "no 
preference  shall  be  given  by  any  regulation  of  commerce  or  revenue  to 
the  ports  of  one  state  over  those  of  another ;  nor  shall  vessels  bound  to 
or  from  one  state  be  obliged  to  enter,  clear,  or  pay  duties  in  another :" 
provisions  too  clear  to  be  eluded  even  by  the  force  of  construction. 
There  will  be  another  difficulty.  If  seizures  be  made  in  port,  or  within 
the  distance  assigned  by  the  laws  of  nations  as  the  limits  of  a  state,  the 
trial  must  be  in  the  state,  with  all  the  embarrassments  of  its  courts  and 
juries ;  while  beyond  the  ports  and  the  distance  to  which  I  have 
referred,  it  would  be  difficult  to  point  out  any  principle  by  which  a 
foreign  vessel,  at  least,  could  be  seized,  except  as  an  incident  to  the 
right  of  blockade,  and,  of  course,  with  all  the  difficulties  belonging  to 
that  mode  of  coercion. 

But  there  yet  remains  another,  and,  I  doubt  not,  insuperable  barrier, 
to  be  found  in  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  Union,  against  all  the 
schemes  of  introducing  force,  whether  by  land  or  water.  Though  I 
cannot  concur  in  the  opinion  of  those  who  regard  the  Supreme  Court  as 
the  mediator  appointed  by  the  Constitution  between  the  states  and  the 
General  Government ;  and  though  I  cannot  doubt  there  is  a  natural  bias 
on  its  part  towards  the  powers  of  the  latter,  yet  I  must  greatly  lower 
my  opinion  of  that  high  and  important  tribunal  for  intelligence,  justice, 
and  attachment  to  the  Constitution,  and  particularly  of  that  pure  and 
upright  magistrate  who  has  so  long,  and  with  such  distinguished  honor 
to  himself  and  the  Union,  presided  over  its  deliberations,  with  all  the 
weight  that  belongs  to  an  intellect  of  the  first  order,  united  with  the 
most  spotless  integrity,  to  believe,  for  a  moment,  that  an  attempt  so 
plainly  and  manifestly  unconstitutional  as  a  resort  to  force  would  be  in 


212  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

such  a  contest,  could  be  sustained  by  the  sanction  of  its  authority.  In 
•whatever  form  force  may  be  used,  it  must  present  questions  for  legal 
adjudication.  If  in  the  shape  of  blockade,  the  vessels  seized  under  it 
must  be  condemned,  and  thus  would  be  presented  the  question  of  prize 
or  no  prize,  and,  with  it,  the  legality  of  the  blockade ;  if  in  that  of  a 
repeal  of  the  acts  establishing  ports  of  entries  in  the  state,  the  legality 
of  the  seizure  must  be  determined,  and  that  would  bring  up  the  ques 
tion  of  the  constitutionality  of  giving  a  preference  to  the  ports  of  one 
state  over  those  of  another ;  and  so,  if  we  pass  from  water  to  land,  we 
will  find  every  attempt  there  to  substitute  force  for  law  must,  in  like 
manner,  come  under  the  review  of  the  courts  of  the  Union ;  and  the 
unconstitutionally  would  be  so  glaring,  that  the  executive  and  legisla 
tive  departments,  in  their  attempt  to  coerce,  should  either  make  an 
attempt  so  lawless  and  desperate,  would  be  without  the  support  of  the 
judicial  department.  I  will  not  pursue  the  question  farther,  as  I  hold 
it  perfectly  clear  that,  so  long  as  a  state  retains  its  federal  relations ;  so 
long,  in  a  word,  as  it  continues  a  member  of  the  Union,  the  contest 
between  it  and  the  General  Government  must  be  before  the  courts  and 
juries;  and  every  attempt,  in  whatever  form,  whether  by  land  or  water, 
to  substitute  force  as  the  arbiter  in  their  place,  must  fail.  The  uncon 
stitutionally  of  the  attempt  would  be  so  open  and  palpable,  that  it 
would  be  impossible  to  sustain  it. 

There  is,  indeed,  one  view,  and  one  only,  of  the  contest  in  which  force 
could  be  employed ;  but  that  view,  as  between  the  parties,  would 
supersede  the  Constitution  itself:  that  nullification  is  secession,  and 
would,  consequently,  place  the  state,  as  to  the  others,  in  the  relation  of 
a  foreign  state.  Such,  clearly,  would  be  the  effect  of  secession ;  but  it 
is  equally  clear  that  it  would  place  the  state  beyond  the  pale  of  all  her 
federal  relations,  and,  thereby,  all  control  on  the  part  of  the  other  states 
over  her.  She  would  stand  to  them  simply  in  the  relation  of  a  foreign 
state,  divested  of  all  federal  connection,  and  having  none  other  between 
them  but  those  belonging  to  the  laws  of  nations.  Standing  thus  towards 
one  another,  force  might,  indeed,  be  employed  against  a  state,  but  it 
must  be  a  belligerent  force,  preceded  by  a  declaration  of  war,  and 
carried  on  with  all  its  formalities.  Such  would  be  the  certain  effect  of 
secession ;  and  if  nullification  be  secession — if  it  be  but  a  different  name 
for  the  same  thing — such,  too,  must  be  its  effect ;  which  presents  the 
highly  important  question,  Are  they,  in  fact,  the  same  ?  on  the  decision 
4>f  which  depends  the  question  whether  it  be  a  peaceable  and  constitu- 


1824-32.]   LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  HAMILTON.       213 

tional  remedy,  that  may  be  exercised  without  terminating  the  federal 
relations  of  the  state  or  not. 

I  am  aware  that  there  is  a  considerable  and  respectable  portion  of 
our  state,  with  a  very  large  portion  of  the  Union,  constituting,  in  fact,  a 
great  majority,  who  are  of  the  opinion  that  they  are  the  same  thing, 
differing  only  in  name,  and  who,  under  that  impression,  denounce  it  as 
the  most  dangerous  of  all  doctrines ;  and  yet,  so  far  from  being  the 
same,  they  are,  unless,  indeed,  I  am  greatly  deceived,  not  only  perfectly 
distinguishable,  but  totally  dissimilar  in  their  nature,  their  object,  and 
effect ;  and  that,  so  far  from  deserving  the  denunciation,  so  properly 
belonging  to  the  act  with  which  it  is  confounded,  it  is,  in  truth,  the 
highest  and  most  precious  of  all  the  rights  of  the  states,  and  essential  to 
preserve  that  very  Union,  for  the  supposed  effect  of  destroying  which 
it  is  so  bitterly  anathematized. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  make  good  my  assertion  of  their  total  dis 
similarity. 

First,  they  are  wholly  dissimilar  in  their  nature.  One  has  reference 
to  the  parties  themselves,  and  the  other  to  their  agents.  Secession  is  a 
withdrawal  from  the  Union  :  a  separation  from  partners,  and,  as  far  as 
depends  on  the  member  withdrawing,  a  dissolution  of  the  partnership. 
It  presupposes  an  association :  a  union  of  several  states  or  individuals 
for  a  common  object.  Wherever  these  exist,  secession  may  ;  and  where 
they  do  not,  it  cannot.  Nullification,  on  the  contrary,  presupposes  the 
relation  of  principal  and  agent :  the  one  granting  a  power  to  be  ex 
ecuted,  the  other,  appointed  by  him  with  authority  to  execute  it ;  and 
is  simply  a  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  principal,  made  in  due  form, 
that  an  act  of  the  agent  transcending  his  power  is  null  and  void.  It  is 
a  right  belonging  exclusively  to  the  relation  between  principal  and 
agent,  to  be  found  wherever  it  exists,  and  in  all  its  forms,  between  sev 
eral,  or  an  association  of  principals,  and  their  joint  agents,  as  well  as 
between  a  single  principal  and  his  agent. 

The  difference  in  their  object  is  no  less  striking  than  in  their  nature. 
The  object  of  secession  is  to  free  the  withdrawing  member  from  the 
obligation  of  the  association  or  union,  and  is  applicable  to  cases  where 
the  object  of  the  association  or  union  has  failed,  either  by  an  abuse  of 
power  on  the  part  of  its  member*,  or  other  causes.  Its  direct  and  im 
mediate  object,  as  it  concerns  the  withdrawing  member,  is  the  dissolution 
of  the  association  or  union,  as  far  as  it  is  concerned.  On  the  contrary, 
the  object  of  nullification  is  to  confine  the  agent  within  the  limits  of  his 


214  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

powers,  by  arresting  his  acts  transcending  them,  not  with  the  view 
of  destroying  the  delegated  or  trust  power,  but  to  preserve  it,  by  compel 
ling  the  agent  to  fulfil  the  object  for  which  the  agency  or  trust  was  cre 
ated;  and  is  applicable  only  to  cases  where  the  trust  or  delegated  powers 
are  transcended  on  the  part  of  the  agent.  Without  the  power  of  seces 
sion,  an  association  or  union,  formed  for  the  common  good  of  all  the 
members,  might  prove  ruinous  to  some,  by  the  abuse  of  power  on  the 
part  of  the  others ;  and  without  nullification  the  agent  might,  under 
color  of  construction,  assume  a  power  never  intended  to  be  delegated, 
or  to  convert  those  delegated  to  objects  never  intended  to  be  compre 
hended  in  the  trust,  to  the  ruin  of  the  principal,  or,  in  case  of  a  joint 
agency,  to  the  ruin  of  some  of  the  principals.  Each  has,  thus,  its  ap 
propriate  object,  but  objects  in  their  nature  very  dissimilar ;  so  much 
so,  that,  in  case  of  an  association  or  union,  where  the  powers  are  del 
egated  to  be  executed  by  an  agent,  the  abuse  of  power,  on  the  part  of 
the  agent,  to  the  injury  of  one  or  more  of  the  members,  would  not 
justify  secession  on  their  part.  The  rightful  remedy  in  that  case  would 
be  nullification.  There  would  be  neither  right  nor  pretext  to  secede  : 
not  right,  because  secession  is  applicable  only  to  the  acts  of  the  mem 
bers  of  the  association  or  union,  and  not  to  the  act  of  the  agent ;  nor 
pretext,  because  there  is  another,  and  equally  efficient  remedy,  short 
of  the  dissolution  of  the  association  or  union,  which  can  only  be  justi 
fied  by  necessity.  Nullification  may,  indeed,  be  succeeded  by  secession. 
In  the  case  stated,  should  the  other  members  undertake  to  grant  the 
power  nullified,  and  should  the  nature  of  the  power  be  such  as  to  defeat 
the  object  of  the  as*nciut.ion.  or  union,  at  least  as  far  as  the  member  nul 
lifying  is  concerned,  it  would  then  become  an  abuse  of  power  on  the 
part  of  the  principal*,  and  thus  present  a  case  where  secession  would 
apply  ;  but  in  no  other  could  it  be  justified,  except  it  be  for  a  failure 
of  the  association  or  union  to  effect  the  object  for  which  it  was  created, 
independent  of  any  abuse  of  power. 

It  now  remains  to  show  that  their  effect  is  as  dissimilar  as  their 
nature  or  object. 

Nullification  leaves  the  members  of  the  association  or  union  in  the 
condition  it  found  them — subject  to  all  its  burdens,  and  entitled  to  all 
its  ailvautrtgc.3,  comprehending  the  member  nullifying  as  well  as  the 
others — its  object  being,  not  to  destroy,  but  to  preserve,  as  has  been 
stated.  It  simply  arrests  the  act  of  the  agent,  as  far  as  the  principal 
is  concerned,  leaving  in  every  other  respect  the  operation  of  the  joint 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  215 

concern  as  before ;  secession,  on  the  contrary,  destroys,  as  far  as  the 
withdrawing  member  is  concerned,  the  association  or  union,  and  re 
stores  him  to  the  relation  he  occupied  towards  the  other  members  be 
fore  the  existence  of  the  association  or  union.  He  loses  the  benefit, 
but  is  released  from  the  burden  and  control,  and  can  no  longer  be 
dealt  with,  by  his  former  associates,  as  one  of  its  members. 

Such  are  clearly  the  differences  between  them  —  differences  so 
marked,  that,  instead  of  being  identical,  as  supposed,  they  form  a  con 
trast  in  all  the  aspects  in  which  they  can  be  regarded.  The  applica 
tion  of  these  remarks  to  the  political  association  or  Union  of  these 
twenty-four  states  and  the  General  Government,  their  joint  agent,  'is 
too  obvious,  after  what  has  been  already  said,  to  require  any  additional 
illustration,  and  I  will  dismiss  this  part  of  the  subject  with  a  single 
additional  remark. 

There  are  many  who  acknowledge  the  right  of  a  state  to  secede,  but 
deny  its  right  to  nullify ;  and  yet,  it  seems  impossible  to  admit  the  one 
without  admitting  the  other.  They  both  presuppose  the  same  struc 
ture  of  the  government,  that  it  is  a  Union  of  the  states,  as  forming 
political  communities,  the  same  right  on  the  part  of  the  states,  as  mem 
bers  of  the  Union,  to  determine  for  their  citizens  the  extent  of  the 
powers  delegated  and  those  reserved,  and,  of  course,  to  decide  whether 
the  Constitution  has  or  has  not  been  violated.  The  simple  difference, 
then,  between  those  who  admit  secession  and  deny  nullification,  and 
those  who  admit  both,  is,  that  one  acknowledges  that  the  declaration 
of  a  state  pronouncing  that  the  Constitution  has  been  violated,  and  is, 
therefore,  null  and  void,  would  be  obligatory  on  her  citizens,  and  would 
arrest  all  the  acts  of  the  government  within  the  limits  of  the  state ; 
while  they  deny  that  a  similar  declaration,  made  by  the  same  authority, 
and  in  the  same  manner,  that  an  act  of  the  government  has  tran 
scended  its  powers,  and  that  it  is,  therefore,  null  and  void,  would  have 
any  obligation ;  while  the  other  acknowledges  the  obligation  in  both 
cases.  The  one  admits  that  the  declaration  of  a  state  assenting  to  the 
Constitution  bound  her  citizens,  and  that  her  declaration  can  unbind 
them ;  but  denies  that  a  similar  declaration,  as  to  the  extent  she  has,  in 
fact,  bound  them,  has  any  obligatory  force  on  them ;  while  the  other 
gives  equal  force  to  the  declaration  in  the  several  cases.  The  one  de 
nies  the  obligation,  where  the  object  is  to  preserve  the  Union  in  th,- 
only  way  it  can  be,  by  confining  the  government,  formed  to  execute  th/ 
trust  powers,  strictly  within  their  limits,  and  to  the  objects  for  whicfc 


216  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

they  were  delegated,  though  they  give  full  force  where  the  object  is  to 
destroy  the  Union  itself;  while  the  other,  in  giving  equal  weight  to 
both,  prefers  the  one  because  it  preserves  and  rejects  the  other  because  it 
destroys ;  aud  yet  the  former  is  the  Union,  and  the  latter  the  disunion 
party!  And  all  this  strange  distinction  originates,  as  far  as  I  can 
judge,  in  attributing  to  nullification  what  belongs  exclusively  to  seces 
sion.  The  difficulty  as  to  the  former,  it  seems,  is,  that  a  state  cannot 
be  in  and  out  of  the  Union  at  the  same  time. 

This  is,  indeed,  true,  if  applied  to  secession — the  throwing  off  the 
authority  of  the  Union  itself.  To  nullify  the  Constitution,  if  I  may  be 
pardoned  the  solecism,  would,  indeed,  be  tantamount  to  disunion ;  and, 
as  applied  to  such  an  act,  it  would  be  true  that  a  state  could  not  be  in 
and  out  of  the  Union  at  the  same  time ;  but  the  act  would  be  seces 
sion. 

But  to  apply  it  to  nullifi cation,  properly  understood,  the  object  of 
which,  instead  of  resisting  or  diminishing  the  powers  of  the  Union,  is 
to  preserve  them  as  they  are,  neither  increased  nor  diminished,  and 
thereby  the  Union  itself  (for  the  Union  may  be  as  effectually  de 
etroyed  by  increasing  as  by  diminishing  its  powers — by  consolidation, 
as  by  disunion  itself),  would  be,  I  would  say,  had  I  not  great  respect 
for  many  who  do  thus  apply  it,  egregious  trifling  with  a  grave  and 
deeply-important  constitutional  subject. 

I  might  here  finish  the  task  which  your  request  imposed,  having,  I 
trust,  demonstrated,  beyond  the  power  of  refutation,  that  a  state  has 
the  right  to  defend  her  reserved  powers  against  the  encroachments  of 
the  General  Government ;  and  I  may  add  that  the  right  is,  in  its 
nature,  peaceable,  consistent  with  the  federal  relations  of  the  state, 
and  perfectly  efficient,  whether  contested  before  the  courts,  or  at 
tempted  to  be  resisted  by  force.  But  there  is  another  aspect  of  the 
subject  not  yet  touched,  without  adverting  to  which,  it  is  impossible  to 
understand  the  full  effects  of  nullification,  or  the  real  character  of  our 
political  institutions  :  I  allude  to  the  power  which  the  states,  as  a  con 
federated  body,  have  acquired  directly  over  each  other,  and  on  which  I 
will  now  proceed  to  make  some  remarks,  though,  I  fear,  at  the  hazard 
of  fatiguing  you. 

Previous  to  the  adoption  of  the  present  Constitution,  no  power  could 
be  exercised  over  any  state  by  any  other,  or  all  of  the  states,  without 
its  own  consent ;  and  we,  accordingly,  find  that  the  old  confederation 
and  the  present  Constitution  were  both  submitted  for  ratification  to 


1824-32.]   LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  HAMILTON.       217 

each  of  the  states,  and  that  each  ratified  for  itself,  and  was  bound  only 
in  consequence  of  its  own  particular  ratification,  as  has  been  already 
stated.  The  present  Constitution  has  made,  in  this  particular,  a  most 
important  modification  in  their  condition.  I  allude  to  the  provision 
which  gives  validity  to  amendments  of  the  Constitution  when  ratified 
by  three  fourths  of  the  states — a  provision  which  has  not  attracted  as 
much  attention  as  its  importance  deserves.  "Without  it,  no  change 
could  have  been  made  in  the  Constitution,  unless  with  the  unanimous 
consent  of  all  the  states,  in  like  manner  as  it  was  adopted.  This  provi 
sion,  then,  contains  a  highly-important  concession  by  each  to  all  of  the 
states,  of  a  portion  of  the  original  and  inherent  right  of  self-government, 
possessed  previously  by  each  separately,  in  favor  of  their  general  con 
federated  powers,  giving  thereby  increased  energy  to  the  states  in  their 
united  capacity,  and  weakening  them  in  the  same  degree  in  their 
separate.  Its  object  was  to  facilitate  and  strengthen  the  action  of  the 
amending,  or  (to  speak  a  little  more  appropriately,  as  it  regards  the 
point  under  consideration)  the  repairing  power.  It  was  foreseen  that 
experience  would,  probably,  disclose  errors  in  the  Constitution  itself; 
that  time  would  make  great  changes  in  the  condition  of  the  country, 
which  would  require  corresponding  changes  in  the  Constitution;  that 
the  irregular  and  conflicting  movements  of  the  bodies  composing  so 
complex  a  system  might  cause  derangements  requiring  correction  ;  and 
that,  to  require  the  unanimous  consent  of  all  the  states  to  meet  these 
various  contingencies,  would  be  placing  the  whole  too  much  under  the 
control  of  the  parts  :  to  remedy  which,  this  great  additional  power  was 
given  to  the  amending  or  repairing  power — this  vis  medicatrix  of  the 
system. 

To  understand  correctly  the  nature  of  this  concession,  we  must  not 
confound  it  with  the  delegated  powers  conferred  on  the  General 
Government,  and  to  be  exercised  by  it  as  the  joint  agent  of  the  states. 
They  are  essentially  different.  The  former  is,  in  fact,  but  a  modification 
of  the  original  sovereign  power  residing  in  the  people  of  the  several 
states — of  the  creating  or  Constitution-making  power  itself,  intended,  as 
stated,  to  facilitate  and  strengthen  its  action,  and  not  change  its  character. 
Though  modified,  it  is  not  delegated.  It  still  resides  in  the  states,  and  is 
still  to  be  exercised  by  them,  and  not  by  the  government. 

I  propose  next  to  consider  this  important  modification  of  the  sovereign 
powers  of  the  states,  in  connection  with  the  right  of  nullification. 

It  is  acknowledged  on  all  sides  that  the  duration  and  stability  of  our 


218  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

system  depend  on  maintaining  the  equilibrium  between  the  states  and 
the  General  Government — the  reserved  and  delegated  powers.  We 
know  that  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution,  and  the 
various  state  conventions  which  adopted  it,  as  far  as  we  are  informed  of 
their  proceedings,  felt  the  deepest  solicitude  on  this  point.  They  saw 
and  felt  there  would  be  an  incessant  conflict  between  them,  which 
would  menace  the  existence  of  the  system  itself,  unless  properly  guarded. 
The  contest  between  the  states  and  General  Government — the  reserved 
and  delegated  rights — will,  in  truth,  be  a  conflict  between  the  great 
predominant  interests  of  the  Union  on  one  side,  controlling  and  directing 
the  movements  of  the  government,  and  seeking  to  enlarge  the  delegated 
powers,  and  thereby  advance  their  power  and  prosperity  ;  and,  on  the 
other,  the  minor  interests  rallying  on  the  reserved  powers,  as  the  only 
means  of  protecting  themselves  against  the  encroachments  and  oppres 
sion  of  the  other.  In  such  a  contest,  without  the  most  effectual  check, 
the  stronger  will  absorb  the  weaker  interests  ;  while,  on  the  other  hand, 
without  an  adequate  provision  of  some  description  or  other,  the  efforts 
of  the  weaker  to  guard  against  the  encroachments  and  oppression  of  the 
stronger  might  permanently  derange  the  system. 

On  the  side  of  the  reserved  powers,  no  check  more  effectual  can  be 
found  or  desired  than  nullification,  or  the  right  of  arresting,  within  the 
limits  of  a  state,  the  exercise,  by  the  General  Government,  of  any 
powers  but  the  delegated — a  right  which,  if  the  states  be  true  to  them 
selves  and  faithful  to  the  Constitution,  will  ever  prove,  on  the  side  of 
the  reserved  powers,  an  effectual  protection  to  both. 

Nor  is  the  check  on  the  side  of  the  delegated  less  perfect.  Though 
less  strong,  it  is  ample  to  guard  against  encroachments  ;  and  is  as  strong 
as  the  nature  of  the  system  would  bear,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel. 
It  is  to  be  found  in  the  amending  power.  Without  the  modification 
which  it  contains  of  the  rights  of  self-government  on  the  part  of  the 
states,  as  already  explained,  the  consent  of  each  state  would  have  been 
requisite  to  any  additional  grant  of  power,  or  other  amendment  of  the 
Constitution.  While,  then,  nullification  would  enable  a  state  to  arrest 
the  exercise  of  a  power  not  delegated,  the  right  of  self-government,  if 
unmodified,  would  enable  her  to  prevent  the  grant  of  a  power  not 
delegated ;  and  thus  her  conception  of  what  power  ought  to  be  granted 
would  be  as  conclusive  against  the  co-states,  as  her  construction  of  the 
powers  granted  is  against  the  General  Government.  In  that  case,  the 
danger  would  be  on  the  side  of  the  states  or  reserved  powers.  The 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  219 

amending  power,  in  effect,  prevents  this  danger.  In  virtue  of  the 
provisions  which  it  contains,  the  resistance  of  a  state  to  a  power  cannot 
finally  prevail,  unless  she  be  sustained  by  one  fourth  of  the  co-states ; 
and  in  the  same  degree  that  her  resistance  is  weakened,  the  power  of 
the  General  Government,  or  the  side  of  the  delegated  powers,  is 
strengthened.  It  is  true  that  the  right  of  a  state  to  arrest  an  unconsti 
tutional  act  is  of  itself  complete  against  the  government ;  but  it  is 
equally  so  that  the  controversy  may,  in  effect,  be  terminated  against  her 
by  a  grant  of  the  contested  powers  by  three  fourths  of  the  states.  It  is 
thus  by  this  simple,  and,  apparently,  incidental  contrivance,  that  the 
right  of  a  state  to  nullify  an  unconstitutional  act,  so  essential  to  the  pro 
tection  of  the  reserved  rights,  but  which,  unchecked,  might  too  much 
debilitate  the  government,  is  counterpoised:  not  by  weakening  the 
energy  of  a  state  in  her  direct  resistance  to  the  encroachment  of  the 
government,  or  by  giving  to  the  latter  a  direct  control  over  the  states, 
as  proposed  in  the  Convention,  but  in  a  manner  infinitely  more  safe,  and, 
if  1  may  be  permitted  so  to  express  myself,  scientific,  by  strengthening 
the  amending  or  repairing  power — the  power  of  correcting  all  abuses 
or  derangements,  by  whatever  cause,  or  from  whatever  quarter. 

To  sum  all  in  a  few  words.  The  General  Government  has  the  right, 
in  the  first  instance,  of  construing  its  own  powers,  which,  if  final  and 
conclusive,  as  is  supposed  by  many,  would  have  placed  the  reserved 
powers  at  the  mercy  of  the  delegated,  and  thus  destroy  the  equilibrium 
of  the  system.  Against  that,  a  state  has  the  right  of  nullification. 
This  right,  on  the  part  of  the  state,  if  not  counterpoised,  might  tend  too 
strongly  to  weaken  the  General  Government  and  derange  the  system. 
To  correct  this,  the  amending  or  repairing  power  is  strengthened.  The 
former  cannot  be  made  too  strong  if  the  latter  be  proportionably  so. 
The  increase  of  the  latter  is,  in  effect,  the  decrease  of  the  former.  Give 
to  a  majority  of  the  states  the  right  of  amendment,  and  the  arresting 
power,  on  the  part  of  the  state,  would,  in  fact,  be  annulled.  The 
amending  power  and  the  powers  of  the  government  would,  in  that  case, 
be,  in  reality,  in  the  same  hands.  The  same  majority  that  controlled 
the  one  would  the  other,  and  the  power  arrested,  as  not  granted,  would 
be  immediately  restored  in  the  shape  of  a  grant.  This  modification  of 
the  right  of  self-government,  on  the  part  of  the  states,  is,  in  fact,  the 
pivot  of  the  system.  By  shifting  its  position  as  the  preponderance  is  on 
the  one  side  or  the  other,  or,  to  drop  the  simile,  by  increasing  or 
diminishing  the  energy  of  the  repairing  power,  effected  by  diminishing 


220  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

or  increasing  the  number  of  states  necessary  to  amend  the  Constitution, 
the  equilibrium  between  the  reserved  and  the  delegated  rights  may  be 
preserved  or  destroyed  at  pleasure. 

I  am  aware  it  is  objected  that,  according  to  this  view,  one  fourth  of 
the  states  may,  in  reality,  change  the  Constitution,  and  thus  take  away 
powers  which  have  been  unanimously  granted  by  all  the  states.  The 
objection  is  more  specious  than  solid.  The  right  of  a  state  is  not  to 
resume  delegated  powers,  but  to  prevent  the  reserved  from  being 
assumed  by  the  government.  It  is,  however,  certain  the  right  may  be 
abused,  and,  thereby,  powers  be  resumed  which  were,  in  fact,  delegated  ; 
and  it  is  also  true,  if  sustained  by  one  fourth  of  the  co-states,  such 
resumption  may  be  successfully  and  permanently  made  by  the  state. 
This  is  the  danger,  and  the  utmost  extent  of  the  danger  from  the  side 
of  the  reserved  powers.  It  would,  I  acknowledge,  be  desirable  to 
avoid  or  lessen  it ;  but  neither  can  be  effected  without  increasing  a 
greater  and  opposing  danger. 

If  the  right  be  denied  to  the  state  to  defend  her  reserved  powers,  for 
fear  she  might  resume  the  delegated,  that  denial  would,  in  effect,  yield 
to  the  General  Government  the  power,  under  the  color  of  construction, 
to  assume  at  pleasure  all  the  reserved  powers.  It  is,  in  fact,  a  question 
between  the  danger  of  the  states  resuming  the  delegated  powers  on  one 
side,  and  the  General  Government  assuming  the  reserved  on  the  other. 
Passing  over  the  far  greater  probability  of  the  latter  than  the  former, 
•which  I  endeavored  to  illustrate  in  the  address  of  last  summer,  I  shall 
confine  my  remarks  to  the  striking  difference  between  them,  viewed  in 
connection  with  the  genius  and  theory  of  our  government. 

The  right  of  a  state  originally  to  complete  self-government  is  a 
fundamental  principle  in  our  system,  in  virtue  of  which  the  grant  of 
power  required  the  consent  of  all  the  states,  while  to  withhold  power  the 
dissent  of  a  single  state  was  sufficient.  It  is  true,  that  this  original  and 
absolute  power  of  self-government  has  been  modified  by  the  Constitu 
tion,  as  already  stated,  so  that  three  fourths  of  the  states  may  now 
grant  power;  and,  consequently,  it  requires  more  than  one  fourth  to 
withhold.  The  boundary  between  the  reserved  and  the  delegated 
powers  marks  the  limits  of  the  Union.  The  states  are  united  to  the 
extent  of  the  latter,  and  separated  beyond  that  limit.  It  is,  then,  clear 
that  it  was  not  intended  that  the  states  should  be  more  united  than  the 
•will  of  one  fourth  of  them,  or,  rather,  one  more  than  a  fourth,  would 
permit.  It  is  worthy  of  remark,  that  it  was  proposed  in  the  Convention 


1824-32.]        LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  221 

to  increase  the  confederative  power,  as  it  may  be  called,  by  vesting  two 
thirds  of  the  states  with  the  right  of  amendment,  so  as  to  require  more 
than  a  third,  instead  of  a  fourth,  to  withhold  power.  The  proposition 
Was  rejected,  and  three  fourths  unanimously  adopted.  It  is,  then,  more 
hostile  to  the  nature  and  genius  of  our  system  to  assume  powers  not 
delegated,  than  to  resume  those  that  are ;  and  less  hostile  that  a  state, 
sustained  by  one  fourth  of  her  co-states,  should  prevent  the  exercise  of 
power  really  intended  to  be  granted,  than  that  the  General  Government 
should  assume  the  exercise  of  powers  not  intended  to  be.  delegated.  In  the 
latter  case,  the  usurpation  of  power  would  be  against  the  fundamental 
principle  of  our  system,  the  original  right  of  the  states  to  self-govern 
ment  ;  while  in  the  former,  if  it  be  usurpation  at  all,  it  would  be,  if  so 
bold  an  expression  may  be  used,  a  usurpation  in  the  spirit  of  the  Con 
stitution  itself — the  spirit  ordaining  that  the  utmost  extent  of  our 
Union  should  be  limited  by  the  will  of  any  number  of  states  exceeding 
a  fourth,  and  that  most  wisely.  In  a  country  having  so  great  a 
diversity  of  geographical  and  political  interests,  with  so  vast  a  territory, 
to  be  filled,  in  a  short  time,  with  almost  countless  millions — a  country 
of  which  the  parts  will  equal  empires,  a  union  more  intimate  than  that 
ordained  in  the  Constitution,  and  so  intimate,  of  course,  that  it  might  be 
permanently  hostile  to  the  feelings  of  more  than  a  fourth  of  the  states, 
instead  of  strengthening,  would  have  exposed  the  system  to  certain 
destruction.  There  is  a  deep  and  profound  philosophy,  which  he  who 
best  knows  our  nature  will  the  most  highly  appreciate,  that  would 
make  the  intensity  of  the  Union,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  inversely 
to  the  extent  of  territory  and  the  population  of  a  country,  and  the 
diversity  of  its  interests,  geographical  and  political ;  and  which  would 
hold  in  deeper  dread  the  assumption  of  reserved  rights  by  the  agent 
appointed  to  execute  the  delegated,  than  the  resumption  of  the  delega 
ted  by  the  authority  which  granted  the  powers  and  ordained  the  agent 
to  administer  them.  There  appears,  indeed,  to  be  a  great  and  prevail 
ing  principle  that  tends  to  place  the  delegated  power  in  opposition  to 
the  delegating — the  created  to  the  creating  power — reaching  far  beyond 
man  and  his  works,  up  to  the  universal  source  of  all  power.  The 
earliest  pages  of  Sacred  History  record  the  rebellion  of  the  archangels 
against  the  high  authority  of  Heaven  itself,  and  ancient  mythology,  the 
war  of  the  Titans  against  Jupiter,  which  according  to  its  narrative 
menaced  the  universe  with  destruction.  This  all-pervading  principle  is 
at  work  in  our  system — the  created  warring  against  the  creating 


222  JOHN    CALJJVVELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

power ;  and  unless  the  government  be  bolted  and  chained  down  with 
links  of  adamant  by  the  hand  of  the  states  which  created  it,  the  creature 
will  usurp  the  place  of  the  creator,  and  universal  political  idolatry 
overspread  the  land. 

If  the  views  presented  be  correct,  it  follows  that,  on  the  interposition 
of  a  state  in  favor  of  the  reserved  rights,  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the 
General  Government  to  abandon  the  contested  power,  or  to  apply  to 
the  states  themselves,  the  source  of  all  political  authority,  for  the 
power,  in  one  of  the  two  modes  prescribed  in  the  Constitution.  If  the 
case  be  a  simple  one,  embracing  a  single  power,  and  that  in  its  nature 
easily  adjusted,  the  more  ready  and  appropriate  mode  would  be  an 
amendment  in  the  ordinary  form,  on  a  proposition  of  two  thirds  of  both 
houses  of  Congress,  to  be  ratified  by  three  fourths  of  the  states  ;  but,  on 
the  contrary,  should  the  derangement  of  the  system  be  great,  embracing 
many  points  difficult  to  adjust,  the  states  ought  to  be  convened  in  a 
general  Convention,  the  most  august  of  all  assemblies,  representing  the 
united  sovereignty  of  the  confederated  states,  and  having  power  and 
authority  to  correct  every  error,  and  to  repair  every  dilapidation  or 
injury,  whether  caused  by  time  or  accident,  or  the  conflicting  movements 
of  the  bodies  which  compose  the  system.  With  institutions  every  way 
so  fortunate,  possessed  of  means  so  well  calculated  to  prevent  disorders, 
and  so  admirable  to  correct  them  when  they  cannot  be  prevented,  he 
•who  would  prescribe  for  our  political  disease  disunion  on  the  one  side, 
or  coercion  of  a  state  in  the  assertion  of  its  rights  on  the  other,  would  de 
serve  and  will  receive,  the  execrations  of  this  and  all  future  generations. 

I  have  now  finished  what  I  had  to  say  on  the  subject  of  this  com 
munication,  in  its  immediate  connection  with  the  Constitution.  In  the 
discussion,  I  have  advanced  nothing  but  on  the  authority  of  the  Con 
stitution  itself,  or  that  of  recorded  and  unquestionable  facts  connected 
with  the  history  of  its  origin  and  formation  ;  and  have  made  no  deduc 
tion  but  such  as  rested  on  principles  which  I  believe  to  be  unquestiona 
ble  ;  but  it  would  be  idle  to  expect,  in  the  present  state  of  the  public 
mind,  a  favorable  reception  of  the  conclusions  to  which  I  have  been 
carried.  There  are  too  many  misconceptions  to  encounter,  too  many 
prejudices  to  combat,  and,  above  all,  too  great  a  weight  of  interest  to 
resist.  I  do  not  propose  to  investigate  these  great  impediments  to  the 
reception  of  the  truth,  though  it  would  be  an  interesting  subject  of 
inquiry  to  trace  them  to  their  cause,  and  to  measure  the  force  of  their 
impeding  power ;  but  there  is  one  among  them  of  so  marked  a  charao 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  223 

ter,  and  which  operates  so  extensively,  that  I  cannot  conclude  without 
making  it  the  subject  of  a  few  remarks,  particularly  as  they  will  be 
calculated  to  throw  much  light  on  what  has  already  been  said. 

Of  all  the  impediments  opposed  to  a  just  conception  of  the  nature 
of  our  political  system,  the  impression  that  the  right  of  a  stdte  to 
arrest  an  unconstitutional  act  of  the  General  Government  is  inconsist 
ent  with  the  great  and  fundamental  principle  of  all  free  states — that  a 
majority  has  the  right  to  govern — is  the  greatest.  Thus  regarded,  nul 
lification  is,  without  farther  reflection,  denounced  as  the  most  danger 
ous  and  monstrous  of  all  political  heresies,  as,  in  truth,  it  would  be, 
were  the  objection  as  well-founded  as,  in  fact,  it  is  destitute  of  all 
foundation,  as  I  shall  now  proceed  to  show. 

Those  who  make  the  objection  seem  to  suppose  that  the  right  of  a 
majority  to  govern  is  a  principle  too  simple  to  admit  of  any  distinction ; 
and  yet,  if  I  do  not  mistake,  It  is  susceptible  of  the  most  important 
distinction — entering  deeply  into  the  construction  of  our  system,  and,  I 
may  add,  into  that  of  all  free  states  in  proportion  to  the  perfection  of 
their  institutions,  and  is  essential  to  the  very  existence  of  liberty. 

When,  then,  it  is  said  that  a  majority  has  the  right  to  govern,  there 
are  two  modes  of  estimating  the  majority,  to  either  of  which  the  expres 
sion  is  applicable.  The  one,  in  which  the  whole  community  is  regarded 
in  the  aggregate,  and  the  majority  is  estimated  in  reference  to  the  entire 
mass.  This  may  be  called  the  majority  of  the  whole,  or  the  absolute 
majority.  The  other,  in  which  it  is  regarded  in  reference  to  its  different 
political  interests,  whether  composed  of  different  classes,  of  different 
communities,  formed  into  one  general  confederated  community,  and  in 
which  the  majority  is  estimated,  not  in  reference  to  the  whole,  but  to 
each  class  or  community  of  which  it  is  composed,  the  assent  of  each 
taken  separately,  and  the  concurrence  of  all  constituting  the  majority. 
A  majority  thus  estimated  may  be  called  the  concurring  majority. 

When  it  is  objected  to  nullification,  that  it  is  opposed  to  the  principle 
that  a  majority  ought  to  govern,  he  who  makes  the  objection  must 
mean  the  absolute,  as  distinguished  from  the  concurring.  It  is  only  in 
the  sense  of  the  former  the  objection  cau  be  applied.  In  that  of  the 
concurring,  it  would  be  absurd,  as  the  concurring  assent  of  all  the  parts 
(with  us,  all  the  states)  is  of  the  very  essence  of  such  majority.  Again, 
it  is  manifest,  that  in  the  sense  it  would  be  good  against  nullification,  it 
would  be  equally  so  against  the  Constitution  itself;  for,  in  whatever 
light  that  instrument  may  be  regarded,  it  is  clearly  not  the  work  of 


224  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32 

the  absolute,  but  of  the  concurring  majority.  It  was  formed  and  rati 
fied  by  the  concurring  assent  of  all  the  states,  and  not  by  the  majority 
of  the  whole  taken  in  the  aggregate,  as  has  been  already  stated.  Thus, 
the  acknowledged  right  of  each  state  in  reference  to  the  Constitution,  is 
unquestionably  the  same  right  which  nullification  attributes  to  each  in 
reference  to  the  unconstitutional  acts  of  the  government ;  and,  if  the 
latter  be  opposed  to  the  right  of  a  majority  to  govern,  the  former  is 
equally  so.  I  go  further.  The  objection  might,  with  equal  truth,  be 
applied  to  all  free  states  that  have  ever  existed  :  I  mean  states  deserv 
ing  the  name,  and  excluding,  of  course,  those  which,  after  a  factious 
and  anarchical  existence  of  a  few  years,  have  sunk  under  the  yoke  of 
tyranny  or  the  dominion  of  some  foreign  power.  There  is  not,  with 
this  exception,  a  single  free  state  whose  institutions  were  not  based  on 
the  principle  of  the  concurring  majority :  not  one  in  which  the  com 
munity  was  not  regarded  in  reference  to  its  different  political  interests, 
and  which  did  not,  in  some  form  or  other,  take  the  assent  of  each  in 
the  operation  of  the  government. 

In  support  of  this  assertion,*!  might  begin  with  our  own  government 
and  go  back  to  that  of  Sparta,  and  show  conclusively  that  there  is  not 
one  on  the  list  whose  institutions  were  not  organized  on  the  principle 
of  the  concurring  majority,  and  in  the  operation  of  which  the  sense  of 
each  great  interest  was  not  separately  consulted.  The  various  devices 
which  have  been  contrived  for  this  purpose,  with  the  peculiar  operation 
of  each,  would  be  a  curious  and  highly  important  subject  of  investiga 
tion.  I  can  only  allude  to  some  of  the  most  prominent. 

The  principle  of  the  concurring  majority  has  sometimes  been  incor 
porated  in  the  regular  and  ordinary  operation  o  the  government,  each 
interest  having  a  distinct  organization,  and  a  combination  of  the  whole 
forming  the  government;  but  still  requiring  the  consent  of  each,  within 
its  proper  sphere,  to  give  validity  to  the  measures  of  government.  Of 
this  modification  the  British  and  Spartan  governments  are  by  far  the 
most  memorable  and  perfect  examples.  In  others,  the  right  of  acting 
— of  making  and  executing  the  laws — was  vested  in  one  interest,  and 
the  right  of  arresting  or  nullifying  in  another.  Of  this  description,  the 
Reman  government  is  much  the  most  striking  instance.  In  others,  the 
right  of  originating  or  introducing  projects  of  laws  was  in  one,  and  of 
enacting  them  in  another  :  as  at  Athens  before  its  government  degen 
erated,  where  the  Senate  proposed,  and  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
people  enacted,  laws. 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  225 

These  devices  were  all  resorted  to  with  the  intention  of  consulting 
the  separate  interests  of  which  the  several  communities  were  com 
posed,  and  against  all  of  which  the  objection  to  nullification,  that  it  is 
opposed  to  the  will  of  a  majority,  could  be  raised  with  equal  force — 
as  strongly,  and  I  may  say  much  more  so,  against  the  unlimited,  un 
qualified,  and  uncontrollable  veto  of  a  single  tribune  out  of  ten  at 
Rome  on  all  laws  and  the  execution  of  laws,  as  against  the  same  right 
of  a  sovereign  state  (one  of  the  twenty-four  tribunes  of  this  Union), 
limited,  as  the  right  is,  to  the  unconstitutional  acts  of  the  General  Gov 
ernment,  and  liable,  as  in  effect  it  is,  to  be  controlled  by  three  fourths 
of  the  co-states ;  and  yet  the  Roman  Republic,  and  the  other  states  to 
which  I  have  referred,  are  the  renowned  among  free  states,  whose  ex 
amples  have  diffused  the  spirit  of  liberty  over  the  world,  and  which, 
if  struck  from  the  list,  would  leave  behind  but  little  to  be  admired  or 
imitated.  There,  indeed,  would  remain  one  class  deserving  from  us 
particular  notice,  as  ours  belongs  to  it — I  mean  confederacies  ;  but,  as 
a  class,  heretofore  far  less  distinguished  for  power  and  prosperity  than 
those  already  alluded  to ;  though  I  trust,  with  the  improvements  we 
have  made,  destined  to  be  placed  at  the  very  head  of  the  illustrious 
list  of  states  which  have  blessed  the  world  with  examples  of  well- 
regulated  liberty ;  and  which  stand  as  so  many  oases  in  the  midst  of 
the  desert  of  oppression  and  despotism,  which  occupies  so  vast  a  space 
in  the  chart  of  governments.  That  such  will  be  the  great  and  glorious 
destiny  of  our  system,  I  feel  assured,  provided  we  do  not  permit  our 
government  to  degenerate  into  the  worst  of  all  possible  forms,  a  consoli 
dated  government,  swayed  by  the  will  of  an  absolute  majority.  Bui 
to  proceed. 

Viewing  a  confederated  community  as  composed  of  as  many  distinct 
political  interests  as  there  are  states,  and  as  requiring  the  consent  of 
each  to  its  measures,  no  government  can  be  conceived  in  which  the 
sense  of  the  whole  community  can  be  more  perfectly  taken,  and  all  its 
interests  be  more  fully  represented  and  protected.  But,  with  this  great 
advantage,  united  with  the  means  of  the  most  just  and  perfect  local 
administration  through  the  agency  of  the  states,  and  combined  with 
the  capacity  of  embracing  within  its  limits  the  greatest  extent  of  ter 
ritory  and  variety  of  interests,  it  is  liable  to  one  almost  fatal  objection, 
the  tardiness  and  feebleness  of  its  movements — a  defect  difficult  to 
be  remedied,  and  when  not  so  great  as  to  render  a  form  of  govern 
ment,  in  other  respects  so  admirable,  almost  worthless.  To  overcome 

10* 


226  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32 

this  difficulty  was  the  great  desideratum  in  political  science,  and  the 
most  difficult  problem  within  its  circle.  To  us  belongs  the  glory  of  its 
solution,  if,  indeed,  our  experiment  (for  such  it  must  yet  be  called) 
shall  prove  that  we  have  overcome  it,  as  I  sincerely  believe  and  hope 
it  will,  on  account  of  our  own,  as  well  as  the  liberty  and  happiness  of 
our  race. 

Our  first  experiment  in  government  was  on  the  old  form  of  a  simple 
confederacy,  unmodified,  and  extending  the  principle  of  the  concurring 
majority  alike  to  the  Constitution  (the  articles  of  union)  and  to  the 
government  which  it  constituted.  It  failed,  and  the  present  structure 
was  reared  in  its  place,  combining,  for  the  first  time  in  a  confederation, 
the  absolute  with  the  concurring  majority  ;  and  thus  uniting  the  justice 
of  the  one  with  the  energy  of  the  other. 

The  new  government  was  reared  on  the  foundation  of  the  old, 
strengthened,  but  not  changed.  It  stands  on  the  same  solid  basis  of  the 
concurring  majority,  perfected  by  the  sanction  of  the  people  of  the 
states  directly  given,  and  not  indirectly  through  the  state  governments, 
as  their  representatives,  as  in  the  old  confederation.  With  that  differ 
ence,  the  authority  which  made  the  two  Constitutions — which  granted 
their  powers,  and  ordained  and  organized  their  respective  governments 
to  execute  them — is  the  same.  But,  in  passing  from  the  Constitution 
to  the  government  (the  law-making  and  the  law-administering  powers), 
the  difference  between  the  two  becomes  radical  and  essential.  There, 
in  the  present,  the  concurring  majority  is  dropped,  and  the  absolute 
substituted.  In  determining,  then,  what  powers  ought  to  be  granted, 
and  how  the  government  appointed  for  their  execution  ought  to  be 
organized,  the  separate  and  concurring  voice  of  the  states  was  required — 
the  union  being  regarded,  for  this  purpose,  in  reference  to  its  various 
and  distinct  interests ;  but  in  the  execution  of  these  powers  (delegated 
only  because  all  the  states  had  a  common  interest  in  their  exercise),  the 
union  is  no  longer  regarded  in  reference  to  its  parts,  but  as  forming,  to 
the  extent  of  its  delegated  powers,  one  great  community,  to  be  governed 
by  a  common  will,  just  as  the  states  are  in  reference  to  their  separate 
interests,  and  by  a  government  organized  on  principles  similar  to  theirs. 
By  this  simple  but  fortunate  arrangement,  we  have  ingrafted  the  abso 
lute  on  the  concurring  majority,  thereby  giving  to  the  administration  of 
the  powers  of  the  government,  where  they  were  required,  all  the 
energy  and  promptness  belonging  to  the  former,  while  we  have  retained 
in  the  power  granting  and  organizing  authority  (if  I  may  so  express 


1824-32.]       LETTER    TO    GOVERNOR    HAMILTON.  227 

myself)  the  principle  of  the  concurring  majority,  and  with  it  that  justice, 
moderation,  and  full  and  perfect  representation  of  all  the  interests  of  the 
community  which  belong  exclusively  to  it. 

Such  is  the  solidity  and  beauty  of  our  admirable  system,  but  which, 
it  is  perfectly  obvious,  can  only  be  preserved  by  maintaining  the  ascend 
ency  Of  the  CONSTITUTION-MAKING  AUTHORITY  OVER  THE  LAW-MAKING THE 

CONCURRING  OVER  THE  ABSOLUTE    MAJORITY.       Nor  IS  it  leSS  clear  that  this 

can  only  be  effected  by  the  right  of  a  state  to  annul  the  unconstitutional 
acts  of  the  government — a  right  confounded  with  the  idea  of  a  minority 
governing  a  majority,  but  which,  so  fur  from  being  the  case,  is  indis 
pensable  to  prevent  the  more  energetic  but  imperfect  majority  which 
controls  the  movements  of  the  government,  from  usurping  the  place  of 
that  more  perfect  and  just  majority  which  formed  the  Constitution  and 
ordained  government  to  execute  its  powers. 

Nor  need  we  apprehend  that  this  check,  as  powerful  as  it  is,  will 
prove  excessive.  The  distinction  between  the  Constitution  and  the  law- 
making  powers,  so  strongty  marked  in  our  institutions,  may  yet  be  con 
sidered  as  a  new  and  untried  experiment.  It  can  scarcely  be  said  to 
have  existed  at  all  before  our  system  of  government.  We  have  yet 
much  to  learn  as  to  its  practical  operation  ;  and,  among  other  things,  if 
I  do  not  mistake,  we  are  far  from  realizing  the  many  and  great  difficul 
ties  of  holding  the  latter  subordinate  to  the  former,  and  without  which, 
it  is  obvious,  the  entire  scheme  of  constitutional  government,  at  least  in 
our  sense,  must  prove  abortive.  Short  as  has  been  our  experience, 
some  of  these,  of  a  very  formidable  character,  have  begun  to  disclose 
themselves,  particularly  between  the  Constitution  and  the  government 
of  the  Union.  The  two  powers  there  represent  very  different  interests : 
the  one,  that  of  all  the  states  taken  separately ;  and  the  other,  that  of 
a  majority  of  the  states  as  forming  a  confederated  community.  Each 
acting  under  the  impulse  of  these  respective  and  very  different  interests, 
must  necessarily  strongly  tend  to  come  into  collision,  and,  in  the  conflict, 
the  advantage  will  be  found  almost  exclusively  on  the  side  of  the 
government  or  law-making  power.  A  few  remarks  will  be  sufficient  to 
illustrate  these  positions. 

The  Constitution,  while  it  grants  powers  to  the  government,  at  the 
eame  time  imposes  restrictions  on  its  action,  with  the  intention  of  con 
fining  it  within  a  limited  range  of  powers,  and  of  the  means  of  executing 
them.  The  object  of  the  powers  is  to  protect  the  rights  and  promote 
the  interests  of  all ;  and  of  the  restrictions,  to  prevent  the  majority,  or 


228  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32 

the  dominant  interests  of  the  government,  from  perverting  powers 
intended  for  the  common  good  into  the  means  of  oppressing  the  minor 
interests  of  the  community.  Thus  circumstanced,  the  dominant  interest 
in  possession  of  the  powers  of  the  government,  and  the  minor  interest 
on  whom  they  are  exercised,  must  regard  these  restrictions  in  a  very 
different  light :  the  latter,  as  a  protection,  and  the  former,  as  a  restraint, 
and,  of  course,  accompanied  with  all  the  impatient  feelings  with  which 
restrictions  on  cupidity  and  ambition  are  ever  regarded  by  those  unruly 
passions.  Under  their  influence,  the  Constitution  will  be  viewed  by  the 
majority,  not  as  the  source  of  their  authority,  as  it  should  be,  but  as 
shackles  on  their  power.  To  them  it  will  have  no  value  as  the  means 
of  protection.  As  a  majority  they  require  none.  Their  number  and 
strength,  and  not  the  Constitution,  are  their  protection  ;  and,  of  course, 
if  I  may  so  speak,  their  instinct  will  be  to  weaken  and  destroy  the  re 
strictions,  in  order  to  enlarge  the  powers.  He  must  have  a  very  imper 
fect  knowledge  of  the  human  heart  who  does  not  see,  in  this  state  of 
things,  an  incessant  conflict  between  the  government  or  the  law-making 
power  and  the  Constitution-making  power.  Nor  is  it  less  certain  that, 
in  the  contest,  the  advantage  will  be  exclusively  with  the  former. 

The  law-making  power  is  organized  and  in  constant  action,  having  the 
control  of  the  honors  and  emoluments  of  the  country,  and  armed  with 
the  power  to  punish  and  reward ;  the  other,  on  the  contrary,  is  un 
organized,  lying  dormant  in  the  great  inert  mass  of  the  community,  till 
called  into  action  on  extraordinary  occasions  and  at  distant  intervals ; 
and  then  bestowing  no  honors,  exercising  no  patronage,  having  neither 
the  faculty  to  reward  nor  to  punish,  but  endowed  simply  with  the 
attribute  to  grant  powers  and  ordain  the  authority  to  execute  them. 
The  result  is  inevitable.  With  so  strong  an  instinct  on  the  part  of  the 
government  to  throw  off  the  restrictions  of  the  Constitution  and  to 
enlarge  its  powers,  and  with  such  powerful  faculties  to  gratify  this 
instinctive  impulse,  the  law-making  must  necessarily  encroach  on  the 
Constitution-making  power,  unless  restrained  by  the  most  efficient 
check — at  least  as  strong  as  that  for  which  we  contend.  It  is  worthy 
of  remark,  that,  all  other  circumstances  being  equal,  the  more  dissimilar 
the  interests  represented  by  the  two,  the  more  powerful  will  be  this 
tendency  to  encroach  ;  and  it  is  from  this,  among  other  causes,  that  it 
is  so  much  stronger  between  the  government  and  the  Constitution- 
making  powers  of  the  Union,  where  the  interests  are  so  very  dissimilar, 
than  between  the  two  in  the  several  states. 


1824-32.]   LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  HAMILTON.       229 

That  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  aware  of  the  danger  which 
I  have  described,  we  have  conclusive  proof  in  the  provision  to  which  I 
have  so  frequently  alluded — I  mean  that  which  provides  for  amend 
ments  to  the  Constitution. 

I  have  already  remarked  on  that  portion  of  this  provision  which,  with 
the  view  of  strengthening  the  confederated  power,  conceded  to  three 
fourths  of  the  states  a  right  to  amend,  which  otherwise  could  only  have 
been  exercised  by  the  unanimous  consent  of  all.  It  is  remarkable,  that, 
while  this  provision  thus  strengthened  the  amending  power  as  it  regards 
the  states,  it  imposed  impediments  on  it  as  far  as  the  government  was 
concerned.  The  power  of  acting,  as  a  general  rule,  is  invested  in  the 
majority  of  Congress ;  but,  instead  of  permitting  a  majority  to  propose 
amendments,  the  provision  requires  for  that  purpose  two  thirds  of  both 
houses,  clearly  with  a  view  of  interposing  a  barrier  against  this  strong 
instinctive  appetite  of  the  government  for  the  acquisition  of  power. 
But  it  wrould  have  been  folly  in  the  extreme  thus  carefully  to  guard  the 
passage  to  the  direct  acquisition,  had  the  wide  door  of  construction  been 
left  open  to  its  indirect ;  and  hence,  in  the  same  spirit  in  which  two 
thirds  of  both  houses  were  required  to  propose  amendments,  the  Con 
vention  that  framed  the  Constitution  rejected  the  many  propositions 
which  were  moved  in  that  body  with  the  intention  of  divesting  the  states 
of  the  right  of  interposing  and,  thereby,  of  the  only  effectual  means  of 
preventing  the  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  the  government  by  con 
struction. 

It  is  thus  that  the  Constitution-making  power  has  fortified  itself 
against  the  law-making  ;  and  that  so  effectually,  that,  however  strong 
the  disposition  and  capacity  of  the  latter  to  encroach,  the  means  of 
resistance  on  the  part  of  the  former  are  not  less  powerful.  If,  indeed, 
encroachments  have  been  made,  the  fault  is  not  in  the  system,  but  in  the 
inattention  and  neglect  of  those  whose  interest  and  duty  it  was  to  inter 
pose  the  ample  means  of  protection  afforded  by  the  Constitution. 

To  sum  up  in  few  words,  in  conclusion,  what  appears  to  me  to  be  the 
entire  philosophy  of  government,  in  reference  to  the  subject  of  thia 
communication. 

Two  powers  are  necessary  to  the  existence  and  preservation  of  free 
states :  a  power  on  the  part  of  the  ruled  to  prevent  rulers  from  abus 
ing  their  authority,  by  compelling  them  to  be  faithful  to  their  constitu 
ents,  and  which  is  effected  through  the  right  of  suffrage  ;  and  a  power 

TO  COMPEL  THE  PARTS  OF  SOCIETY   TO   BE   JUST   TO   ONE   ANOTHER,  BY   COM- 


230  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32 

PELLINQ  THEM  TO  CONSULT  THE  INTEREST  OF  EACH  OTHER,  which  Can   Only 

be  effected,  whatever  may  be  the  device  for  the  purpose,  by  requiring 
the  concurring  assent  of  all  the  great  and  distinct  interests  of  the  com 
munity  to  the  measures  of  the  government.  This  result  is  the  sum- 
total  of  all  the  contrivances  adopted  by  free  states  to  preserve  their 
liberty,  by  preventing  the  conflicts  between  the  several  classes  or  parts 
of  the  community.  Both  powers  are  indispensable.  The  one  as  much 
so  as  the  other.  The  rulers  are  not  more  disposed  to  encroach  on  the 
ruled  than  the  different  interests  of  the  community  on  one  another ; 
nor  would  they  more  certainly  convert  their  power  from  the  just  and 
legitimate  objects  for  which  governments  are  instituted  into  an  instru 
ment  of  aggrandizement,  at  the  expense  of  the  ruled,  unless  made  re 
sponsible  to  their  constituents,  than  would  the  stronger  interests  theirs, 
at  the  expense  of  the  weaker,  unless  compelled  to  consult  them  in  the 
measures  of  the  government,  by  taking  their  separate  and  concurring 
assent.  The  same  cause  operates  in  both  cases.  The  constitution  of 
our  nature,  which  would  impel  the  rulers  to  oppress  the  ruled,  unless 
prevented,  would  in  like  manner,  and  with  equal  force,  impel  the 
stronger  to  oppress  the  weaker  interest.  To  vest  the  right  of  govern 
ment  in  the  absolute  majority,  would  be,  in  fact,  BUT  TO  EMBODY  THE 

WILL  OF  THE  STRONGER  INTEREST  IN  THE  OPERATIONS  OF  THE  GOVERN 
MENT,  AND  NOT  THE  WILL  OF  THE  WHOLE  COMMUNITY,  AND  TO  LEAVE  THE 
OTHERS  UNPROTECTED,  A  PREY  TO  ITS  AMBITION  AND  CUPIDITY,  JUSt  as 

would  be  the  case  between  rulers  and  ruled,  if  the  right  to  govern  was 
vested  exclusively  in  the  hands  of  the  former.  They  would  both  be, 
in  reality,  absolute  and  despotic  governments :  the  one  as  much  so  as 
the  other. 

They  would  both  become  mere  instruments  of  cupidity  and  ambition 
in  the  hands  of  those  who  wielded  them.  No  one  doubts  that  such 
would  be  the  case  were  the  government  placed  under  the  control  of 
irresponsible  rulers ;  but,  unfortunately  for  the  cause  of  liberty,  it  is 
not  seen  with  equal  clearness  that  it  must  as  necessarily  be  so  when 
controlled  by  an  absolute  majority ;  and  yet,  the  former  is  not  more 
certain  than  the  latter.  To  this  we  may  attribute  the  mistake  so  often 
and  so  fatally  repeated,  that  TO  EXPEL  A  DESPOT  is  TO  ESTABLISH  LIB 
ERTY — a  mistake  to  which  we  may  trace  the  failure  of  many  noble  and 
generous  efforts  in  favor  of  liberty.  The  error  consists  in  considering 
communities  as  formed  of  interests  strictly  identical  throughout,  instead 
of  being  composed,  as  they  in  reality  are,  of  so  many  distinct  interests 


1824-32.]   LETTER  TO  GOVERNOR  HAMILTON.      231 

as  there  are  individuals.  The  interests  of  no  two  persons  are  the  same, 
regarded  in  reference  to  each  other,  though  they  may  be,  viewed  in 
relation  to  the  rest  of  the  community.  It  is  this  diversity  which  the 
several  portions  of  the  community  bear  to  each  other,  in  reference  to 
the  whole,  that  renders  the  principle  of  the  concurring  majority  neces 
sary  to  preserve  liberty.  Place  the  power  in  the  hands  of  the  abso 
lute  majority,  and  the  strongest  of  these  would  certainly  pervert  the 
government  from  the  object  for  which  it  was  instituted,  the  equal  pro 
tection  of  the  rights  of  all,  into  an  instrument  of  advancing  itself  at  the 
expense  of  the  rest  of  the  community.  Against  this  abuse  of  power 
no  remedy  can  be  devised  but  that  of  the  concurring  majority.  Neither 
the  right  of  sum-age  nor  public  opinion  can  possibly  check  it.  They,  in 
fact,  but  tend  to  aggravate  the  disease.  It  seems  really  surprising  that 
truths  so  obvious  should  be  so  imperfectly  understood.  There  would 
appear,  indeed,  a  feebleness  in  our  intellectual  powers  on  political  sub 
jects  when  directed  to  large  masses.  We  readily  see  why  a  single  indi 
vidual,  as  a  ruler,  would,  if  not  prevented,  oppress  the  rest  of  the  com 
munity  ;  but  are  at  a  loss  to  understand  why  seven  millions  would,  if 
not  also  prevented,  oppress  six  millions,  as  if  the  relative  members  on 
either  side  could  in  the  least  degree  vary  the  principle. 

In  stating  what  I  have,  I  have  but  repeated  the  experience  of  ages, 
comprehending  all  free  governments  preceding  ours,  and  ours  as  far  as 
it  has  advanced.  The  PRACTICAL  operation  of  ours  has  been  substan 
tially  on  the  principle  of  the  absolute  majority.  "We  have  acted,  with 
some  exceptions,  as  if  the  General  Government  had  the  right  to  in 
terpret  its  own  powers,  without  limitation  or  check  ;  and  though  many 
cirumstances  have  favored  us,  and  greatly  impeded  the  natural  pro 
gress  of  events,  under  such  an  operation  of  the  system,  yet  we  already 
see,  in  whatever  direction  we  turn  our  eyes,  the  growing  symptoms  01 
disorder  and  decay — the  growth  of  faction,  cupidity,  and  corruption; 
and  the  decay  of  patriotism,  integrity,  and  disinterestedness.  In  the 
midst  of  youth,  we  see  the  flushed  cheek,  and  the  short  and  feverish 
breath,  that  mark  the  approach  of  the  fatal  hour  ;  and  come  it  will, 
unless  there  be  a  speedy  and  radical  change — a  return  to  the  great  con 
servative  principle  which  brought  the  Republican  party  into  authority, 
but  which,  with  the  possession  of  power  and  prosperity,  it  has  long 
ceased  to  remember. 

I  have  now  finished  the  task  which  your  request  imposed.  If  I 
have  been  so  fortunate  as  to  add  to  your  fund  a  single  new  illustration 


232  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1824-32. 

of  this  great  conservative  principle  of  our  government,  or  to  furnish 
an  additional  argument  calculated  to  sustain  the  state  in  her  noble 
and  patriotic  struggle  to  revive  and  maintain  it,  and  in  which  you  have 
acted  a  part  long  to  be  remembered  by  the  friends  of  freedom,  I  shali 
feel  amply  compensated  for  the  time  occupied  in  so  long  a  communica 
tion.  I  believe  the  cause  to  be  the  cause  of  truth  and  justice,  of  union, 
liberty,  and  the  Constitution,  before  which  the  ordinary  party  struggles 
of  the  day  sink  into  perfect  insignificance ;  and  that  it  will  be  so  re 
garded  by  the  most  distant  posterity,  I  have  not  the  slightest  doubt. 
With  great  and  sincere  regard, 

I  am  yours,  <fcc.,  &c., 

JOHN  C.  CALHOUN. 

His  Excellency  JAMES  HAMILTON,  Jun., 
Governor  of  South  Carolina. 

This  elaborate  production  exhausted  the  whole  argu 
ment  in  defence  of  the  position  assumed  by  Mr.  Cal- 
houn,  and,  with  his  address,  was  regarded  as  a  political 
text  book  by  the  nullifiers  of  South  Carolina.  They 
looked  upon  it  as  their  Magna  Charta,  which  promised 
them  deliverance  from  wrong  and  oppression,  and  be 
hind  which  were  safety  and  protection. 

Before  proceeding  further,  let  us  see  what  was  ia 
truth  the  position  of  Mr.  Calhoun ;  for  upon  no  subject 
was  he  more  frequently  misrepresented,  and  none  of  the 
great  constitutional  questions  which  have  been  agitated, 
is  so  little  understood  at  this  day  in  many  sections  of  the 
Union  : — He  held,  then,  1.  that  the  federal  constitution 
was  a  compact  adopted  and  ratified  by  and  between  the 
states,  in  their  sovereign  capacities  as  states  ;  2.  that 
the  general  government  contemplated  and  authorized 
by  this  constitution  was  the  mere  agent  of  the  states  in 
the  execution  of  certain  delegated  powers,  in  regard  to 
the  extent  of  which  the  states  themselves  were  the  final 
judges ;  and  3.  that  when  the  reserved  powers  were  in- 


1824-32.]  HIS  POSITION.  233 

fringed  by  the  general  government,  or  the  delegated 
powers  abused,  its  principals,  the  states,  possessed  the 
right  of  state  interposition  or  nullification,  otherwise 
there  would  be  no  remedy  for  any  usurpation  of  the  re 
served  or  abuse  of  the  delegated  powers. 

These  were  the  great  leading  features  of  Mr.  Calhoun's 
creed,  and  he  claimed  that  the  Virginia  and  Kentucky 
resolutions,  and  Mr.  Madison's  report,  fully  sustained 
him  in  the  position  he  had  assumed.  And  it  is  difficult 
to  see  wherein  they  did  riot  thus  sustain  him.  The 
Virginia  resolutions  declared,  in  express  terms,  the 
right  of  the  states  to  interpose,  whenever  their  reserved 
powers  \vere  infringed,  and  to  maintain  "  within  their 
respective  limits,  the  authorities,  rights  and  liberties,  ap 
pertaining  to  them  ;"  and  in  the  Kentucky  resolutions, 
Mr.  Jefferson  held,  "  that  in  all  cases  of  an  abuse  of 
delegated  powers,  the  members  of  the  general  govern 
ment  being  chosen  by  the  people,  a  change  by  the 
people  would  be  the  constitutional  remedy  ;  but  where 
powers  are  assumed,  which  have  not  been  delegated,  a 
nullification  of  the  act  is  the  rightful  remedy  that  every 
state  has  a  natural  right  to,  in  cases  not  in  the  compact 
(casus  non  fazderis),  to  nullify,  of  their  own  authority, 
all  assumptions  of  powers  within  their  limits." 

Such  was  the  platform  laid  down  by  Jefferson  and 
Madison,  the  great  founders  of  the  Republican  party,  and 
upon  which  Mr.  Calhoun  planted  himself.  His  views 
were,  of  course,  diametrically  opposed  to  the  consolida 
tion  doctrines  of  the  federal  school  of  politicians  ;  and 
with  respect  to  the  minor  questions  collateral  to,  or 
growing  out  of,  these  first  principles,  the  difference  was 
as  broad  and  as  well-defined.  Among  Republicans, 


234  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

however,  the  State  Rights  doctrines  were  generally 
popular,  during  the  nullification  controversy,  and  they 
have  since  become  even  more  so,  in  consequence  of  the 
able  and  convincing  expositions  of  Mr.  Calhouri.  But 
the  great  majority  of  his  old  political  friends,  out  of  the 
state  of  South  Carolina,  differed  with  him  as  to  the  ap 
plication  of  those  doctrines.  He  insisted,  that  the  power 
delegated  to  Congress  by  the  constitution,  of  laying  taxes, 
duties,  imposts  and  excises,  was  limited,  by  its  terms,  to 
the  following  purposes — the  payment  of  the  debts  and 
providing  for  the  defence  and  general  welfare  of  the 
United  States  :*  he  admitted  the  power  of  Congress  to 
impose  duties  for  revenue,  but  denied  it  for  protection. 
On  the  other  side  it  was  said,  that  the  right  to  impose 
duties  for  protection  existed  somewhere ;  that  the  fed 
eral  constitution  expressly  took  away  from  the  states 
the  power  to  lay  imposts  or  duties  on  imports  or  ex 
ports ;+  and  that,  as  this  power  could  not  be  utterly 
extinct,  it  must  be  lodged  in  the  general  government. J 
To  this  Mr.  Calhoun  replied,  that  the  idea  of  protecting 
the  domestic  interests  of  the  country  was  not  contem 
plated  by  the  framers  of  the  constitution ;  that  every 
tariff  prior  to  1816  was  a  revenue  tariff;  and  that  the 
cession  of  the  public  lands  by  the  states  to  the  general 
government  was  made  to  enable  it  to  pay  the  public 
debt,  and  that  this  cession  would  have  been  unnecessary 
for  such  a  purpose,  if  a  high  protective  tariff  was 
thought  to  be  constitutional.  All  the  opponents  of  Mr. 
Calhoun  in  the  Republican  party,  did  not  maintain  that 
a  tariff,  with  protection  as  its  primary  feature,  was  con- 

*  Article  i.,  Section  8.  f  Ibid,  Section  10. 

\  Annual  Message  of  President  Jackson,  1830. 


1824-32.]  PROTECTION.  235 

sti'utional.  This  doctrine  was  held  by  the  northern 
.ederalists,  and  by  only  a  small  portion  of  the  friends  of 
the  administration  of  General  Jackson.  The  Republi 
cans,  generally,  agreed  that  revenue  should  be  the  con 
trolling  consideration;  but  many,  and  perhaps  all  wno 
were  not  nullifiers,  thought  that  it  was  proper,  in  the  im 
position  of  duties,  to  discriminate  for  purposes  of  pro 
tection.  This,  too,  Mr.  Calhoun  regarded  as  an  error, 
for  discrimination  for  protection  was  neither  more  nor 
less  than  protection  itself — not  so  glaring,  not  so  unjust, 
it  might  be — yet  involving  the  same  identical  principle. 
Admitting  that  the  words  "  general  welfare"  in  the 

o  O 

constitution,  as  has  been  contended  by  many,  would 
appear  to  authorize  a  tariff  for  the  protection  of  domes 
tic  interests  :  is  it  true  that  the  general  welfare,  which 
obviously  means  the  good  of  the  whole,  the  benefit  and 
advantage  of  each  and  every  of  the  states,  equally  and 
alike,  can  be  promoted  by  a  protective  tariff?  Prob 
ably  no  question  has  given  rise  to  more  sophistry,  to 
greater  or  more  absurd  fallacies,  than  this.  Many 
specious  arguments,  the  arguments  of  chance  or  cir 
cumstance,  have  been  resorted  to  by  the  advocates  of 
protection,  but  they  may  all  be  embraced  in  a  few  prop 
ositions. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  said,  that  a  protective  tariff 
reduces  the  prices  of  manufactured  goods,  and  as  the 
evidence  of  this,  the  friends  of  protection  point  to  the 
difference  in  the  cost  of  certain  articles,  previous  to 
1816,  and  at  the  present  time.  But  this  is  all  decep 
tion.  The  establishment  of  manufactories  in  this  coun 
try  may  have  contributed  in  a  very  slight  degree  to  re 
duce  prices,  but  the  great  causes  of  this  reduction  are 


236  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

to  be  found  in  the  improvements  in  machinery  origina 
ting  in  the  inventive  genius  of  Arkwright,  Danforth, 
Montgomery,  Gore,  and  Roberts,  and  in  the  wonderfully 
increased  facilities  for  the  production,  and  consequent 
cheapness,  of  the  raw  material.  One  of  two  things  is 
self-evident : — the  duty  upon  an  article  either  increases 
the  cost  to  the  consumer,  or  else  it  affords  no  protection. 
If  an  article  can  be  imported  this  year  and  sold  at  one 
dollar,  and  if  a  duty  is  next  year  imposed  upon  it,  all 
things  entering  into  or  making  up  the  value  of  the 
article  remaining  unchanged,  the  price  in  the  market  is 
increased, — by  the  amount  of  protection,  if  the  duty  be 
a  prohibitory  one,  and  if  less  than  that,  by  the  amount 
of  the  duty  itself.  So  obvious  is  this,  that  the  contrary 
proposition  carries  with  it,  in  its  absurdity,  its  own  ref 
utation. 

In  the  second  place,  it  is  urged,  that  a  protective  tariff 
affords  a  home-market  for  agricultural  products.  But  is 
this  so?  The  agricultural  interest  all  admit  to  be  the 
great  interest  of  the  country  ;  but  facts  show,  that  no 
home-market  has  ever  yet  been  afforded  to  it  by  a  pro 
tective  tariff.  Centuries  must  elapse,  if,  indeed,  that 
time  ever  arrives,  before  our  agricultural  products  will 
all  be  consumed  at  home.  There  is  a  large  amount  of 
surplus  produce  annually  disposed  of  in  foreign  mar 
kets.  In  1847,  there  were  produced  in  the  United 
States,  694,491,700  bushels  of  grain  used  for  bread- 
stuffs,  of  which  the  surplus  for  exportation  amounted  to 
224,384,502  bushels,  or  nearly  one  third  of  the  whole 
amount.*  During  the  year  ending  the  31st  of  August, 
1849,  there  were  2,227,844  bales  of  cotton  exported  from 
*  Report  of  the  Commissioner  of  Patents,  January,  1848. 


1824-32.]       EVILS    OF    THE    PROTECTIVE    SYSTEM.          237 

the  United  States  to  foreign  ports,  while  the  much 
boasted  home-market  consumed  but  520,000  bales,  not 
one  fifth  part  of  the  whole  production.*  The  value  of 
the  domestic  exports  of  the  United  States  during  the 
year  ending  on  the  30th  of  June,  1 849,  was  $  1 32,666,955,  f 
of  which  the  agricultural  products  amounted  to  $111,- 
059,378,  or  more  than  three  fourths  of  the  whole 
amount.  J  In  view  of  these  facts,  no  unprejudiced 
person  can  for  a  moment  consider  the  vast  territorial 
extent  of  these  states,  and  the  variety  and  amount  of 
their  productions,  without  being  forcibly  impressed  with 
the  conviction  that  a  home-market  is  entirely  out  of  the 
question.  The  manner  in  which  a  protective  tariff 
operates  to  the  prejudice  of  the  farmer  and  planter  is 
this  : — the  prices  obtained  for  their  surplus  in  foreign 
markets  constitute  the  standard  of  value  for  the  whole 
production.  The  internal  trade,  that  of  the  home-mar 
ket,  is  mere  barter  ;  but  the  foreign  trade  is  the  true 
commercial  traffic  which  regulates  and  controls  prices. 
The  value  of  breadstuff's  is  not  determined  in  the  city 
of  New  York,  but  in  the  foreign  markets  where  the  sur 
plus  is  disposed  of;  and  the  prices  of  cotton  at  Charles 
ton,  Mobile,  and  New  Orleans,  are  not  made  at  Provi 
dence  or  Lowell,  but  at  Liverpool  and  Manchester. 
Restrictions  upon  the  trade  with  foreign  countries,  in 
the  shape  of  high  duties,  are  therefore  injurious  to  the 
agricultural  interest  generally,  and  are  in  effect  a  tax 

*  Hunt's  Merchants'  Magazine. 

f  The  total  value  of  the  exports,  of  domestic  and  foreign  produce,  was 
$145,755,820. 

\  House  of  Representatives,  Exec.  Doc.  15 — 1st  session,  31st  Con 
gress — pp.  50,  51. 


238  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

upon  it  to  the  amount  of  the  increased  prices  of  the 
protected  articles  consumed  by  it ;  in  the  southern  and 
planting  states  they  are  felt  to  be  particularly  oppressive, 
because  nearly  one  half  of  the  domestic  exports  of  the 
country  are  produced  there,  the  value  of  the  rice,  cotton 
and  tobacco,  exported  in  the  year  ending  June  30,  1849, 
amounting  to  about  seventy-five  millions  of  dollars,  con 
siderably  more  than  one  half  of  the  whole  exports  dur 
ing  that  period.* 

Again,  it  is  contended,  that  without  a  protective 
tariff  the  balance  of  trade  is  against  us.  It  is  very 
questionable,  whether  it  would  in  fact  be  desirable  to 
have  the  balance  of  trade  always  in  our  favor,  for  if  we 
drew  ten  millions  of  dollars  annually  from  foreign  coun 
tries,  their  supplies  of  specie  would  soon  be  exhausted, 
and  trade  would  be  at  an  end.  Any  one  who  will 
examine  the  tables  of  imports  and  exports  for  the  last 
sixty  years,  will  find  that  the  balance  has  sometimes 
been  in  our  favor,  and  sometimes  against  us — one  way 
this  year,  and  another  the  next  ;  and  that  it  has  been 
greater  against  us,  under  the  operation  of  a  protective 
tariff,  than  under  the  revenue  tariff  of  1846.  It  was  so 
after  the  passage  of  the  acts  of  1816,  1824,  and  1828  ; 
the  same  thing  was  witnessed,  too,  after  the  passage  of 
the  compromise  act,  while  the  protective  duties  were 
collected,  though  the  balance  was  in  this  case  increased 
by  the  excessive  importations  induced  by  the  specula 
ting  tendencies  of  the  times.  After  the  act  of  1842  had 
gone  fairly  into  operation,  in  1845  and  1846,  the  balance 
was  decidedly  against  us ;  but  for  three  years  subse- 

*  House  of  Representatives,  Exec.  Doc.  15 — 1st  session,  31st  Con 
gress — pp.  50,  51. 


1824-32.]  BALANCE    OF    TRADE. 

quent  to  1846  the  net  balance  was  in  our  favor.*  But 
this  idea  in  regard  to  the  balance  of  trade  is  all  delusive ; 
for  among  the  imports  are  included  various  items  which 
enter  into  the  substantial  wealth  of  the  country, — such 
as  the  goods  and  effects  of  immigrants,  gold  and  silver 
sent  here  to  be  invested,  or  the  avails  of  exports  solci 
or  of  loans  obtained  for  the  construction  of  public  works. 
It  is  further  said,  that  we  need  a  high  tariff  to  pro 
tect  our  laborers  and  mechanics  against  the  pauper 
labor  of  Europe.  This  is  the  worst  of  all  arguments, 
because  it  is  agrarian  in  its  character  and  tendency. 
Without  doubt,  the  labor  of  the  country  is  the  basis  and 
support  of  its  capital, — that  is,  the  means  of  production 
constitute  its  real  wealth.  Labor,  then,  is  deserving 
of  encouragement  and  protection  ;  but  a  protective 
tariff  is  designed  to  favor  only  a  class  of  laborers,  and 
not  the  whole.  Hence  it  must  be  partial  and  unjust, 
and  the  protection  afforded  to  the  comparatively  small 
number  of  laborers  engaged  in  manufactures  is  a  tax 
upon  the  industry  of  the  great  mass  of  laborers.  This, 
also,  operates  with  peculiar  hardship  in  the  great  staple 
states  at  the  south,  where  the  avails  of  labor  are  sent 
abroad  to  a  foreign  market. 

*  The  following  is  a  table  of  the  imports  and  exports  for  three  yeara 
subsequent  to  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1846  : 

Imports.  Exports. 

1847.  $146,545,638  §158,648,622 

1848.  154,977,876  154,032,131 

1849.  147,857,439  145,755,820 


$449,380,953  $458,436,573 

449,380,953 


Net  balance  in  favor  of  U.  S.  $9,055,620 


240  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1824-32. 

A  strong  argument  against  the  protective  tariffs 
known  in  the  legislation  of  this  country,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  deceptive  features  introduced  by  those  who 
framed  them,  and  which  would  not  have  appeared  if 
they  had  been  in  themselves  just  and  proper.  Of  this 
character  are  the  specific  and  minimum  duties.  By 
the  former,  articles  of  very  unequal  value  pay  the  same 
duty,  which  is  as  palpably  unjust  as  it  would  be  for  an 
assessor  to  value  all  the  farms  in  his  town  or  district  at 
the  same  price,  though  their  actual  worth  varied  from 
one  thousand  to  one  hundred  thousand  dollars.  The 
minimum  principle  operates  in  this  way :  A  duty  of 
perhaps  twenty  per  cent,  is  imposed  on  cotton  goods, 
which  would  seem  to  the  farmer  and  laborer  a  quite 
moderate  one ;  but  to  ascertain  the  actual  amount  of 
duty,  a  system  of  false  valuations  is  adopted,  and  all 
cotton  cloth  worth  less  than  twenty  cents  the  square 
yard  is  valued  at  twenty  cents.  Upon  this  false  valua 
tion  the  duty  is  calculated ;  as  for  instance,  a  yard  of 
cotton  cloth,  \vhose  actual  cost  is  but  four  cents,  is 
valued  at  twenty  cents,  and  a  duty  of  twenty  per  cent, 
on  this  valuation  is  four  cents  the  yard — thus  making 
the  duty  in  fact  one  hundred  per  cent,  instead  of  twenty 
per  cent.  It  may  be  said  that  this  duty  is  a  prohibitory 
one,  and  therefore  it  matters  not  what  it  may  amount 
to.  So  much  the  worse.  If  the  duty  be  prohibitory, 
let  it  be  avowed,  and  let  the  bill  declare  it  to  be  fifty, 
sixty,  eighty,  or  one  hundred  per  cent.,  as  may  be  in 
tended,  and  not  by  means  of  this  deceptive  feature, 
lead  those  who  do  not  understand  the  subject,  to  suppose 
that  the  duty  is  only  twenty  per  cent. 

In  regard  to  the  remedy  for  the  evils  complained  of, 


1824-32.]  REDUCTION    OF    DUTIES.  241 

Mr.  Calhoun  and  the  nullifiers  also  differed  from  their 
republican  friends  in  other  states.  He  held  that  the 
right  of  interposition  by  a  state  was  immediate  upon 
an  infringement  of  her  reserved  powers;  while  they 
thought  it  to  be  "  the  rightful  remedy"  only  in  the  last 
resort,  and  that  an  appeal  should  first  be  made  to  the 
other  state  governments  to  redress  the  wrong  before 
adopting  any  measures  of  resistance.  This  course  was 
recommended  by  Mr.  Jefferson  in  the  Kentucky  reso 
lutions,  although  he  did  not  declare  it  to  be  absolutely 
requisite.  If  Mr.  Calhoun  erred,  however,  in  the  con 
struction  of  this  great  republican  doctrine,  and  in  the 
.application  of  the  principles  of  the  republican  creed,  he 
was  sincere  in  that  error.  His  attachment  to  the  Uniot 
was  firm  and  devoted  ;  he  ardently  desired  to  see  it 
perpetuated  ;  and  no  definite  steps  were  taken  by  South 
Carolina  toward  the  protection  of  what  she  conceived 
.o  be  her  just  rights,  until  the  expiration  of  four  years 
ifter  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1828. 

While  the  state  was  thus  agitated  with  the  throes  of 
.ncipient  revolution,  a  ray  of  hope  shot  athwart  the  be 
clouded  sky.  The  law  of  1828  was  far  more  productive 
of  revenue  than  had  been  anticipated  by  its  framers ; 
the  public  debt  was  being  rapidly  extinguished  ;  and 
the  treasury  was  seriously  threatened  with  plethora. 
The  disposition  of  the  constantly  accumulating  surplus 
of  revenue  was  of  the  first  importance,  and  it  was  gen 
erally  conceded  by  statesmen  of  all  parties  that  a  reduc 
tion  of  duties  ought  forthwith  to  be  made.  The  surplus 
might  have  been  absorbed  by  a  vast  increase  of  the  ex 
penditures,  but  this  no  party  would  told  ate.  In  his 
annual  message,  therefore,  in  December,  1831,  Presi- 

11 


242  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALIIOUN.  |_  1824-32. 

dent  Jackson  announced  that  the  public  debt  would 
soon  be  entirely  discharged,  and  recommended  the  re 
duction  of  the  duties  in  order  to  relieve  the  people  from 
unnecessary  taxation. 

So  apparent  was  the  necessity  for  a  retrograde  move 
ment,  that  all  appeared  to  concur  in  it,  and  at  this 
session  of  Congress  the  act  of  1832  was  passed.  This 
bill  was  declared  to  be  the  ultimatum  of  the  friends  of 
protection,  and  was  intended  by  the  immediate  friends 
of  the  administration,  and  by  the  opposition  headed  by 
Mr.  Clay,  as  a  final  adjustment  of  the  duties.  The  re 
duction  made  by  the  bill  was  rather  imaginary  than 
real.  The  duties  upon  the  protected  articles  were  aug 
mented,  while  those  on  the  unprotected  articles  were 
alone  diminished.  So  far,  therefore,  from  abandoning 
the  principle  of  protection,  it  was  presented  in  this  bill 
in  the  most  odious  form.  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  friends 
would  have  been  content  with  the  present  reduction,  if 
a  prospective  reduction  to  the  revenue  standard  had 
been  contemplated ;  but  instead  of  this,  it  was  declared 
that  the  bill  should  be  the  permanent  system  of  revenue 
after  the  extinguishment  of  the  debt. 

Immediately  after  the  passage  of  the  bill,  the  repre 
sentatives  from  the  state  of  South  Carolina  who  thought 
with  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  nullification  was  the  rightful 
remedy,  issued  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  state, 
advising  them  that  the  protecting  system  might  now  be 
regarded  as  the  settled  policy  of  the  country,  and  that 
all  hope  of  relief  from  Congress  was  irrecoverably  gone. 

The  people  of  South  Carolina  were  not  unanimous 
in  sustaining  the  positions  assumed  by  Mr.  Calhoun. 
A  small  party  calling  themselves  Unionists,  embracing 


1824-32.]      BV.  ;TH  CAROLINA  CONVENTION.  243 

several  popular  and  influential  men,  among  whom  were 
ex-Governor  Manning,  Judge  Smith,  Colonel  Drayton, 
Mr.  Pettigru,  and  Mr.  Poinsett,  had  been  formed, 
and,  aided  by  the  whole  weight  of  the  influence  and 
patronage  of  the  federal  executive,  they  entered  with 
zeal  into  the  canvass  preceding  the  annual  election.  A 
fierce  and  violent  contest  ensued,  which  terminated  in 
the  choice  of  a  large  majority  of  nullifiers  to  the  state 
legislature.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  not,  in  the  meanwhile, 
an  idle  or  indifferent  spectator.  He  did  not  withhold 
his  counsel  or  advice,  and  no  one  individual  contributed 
more  powerfully  than  he  to  this  result. 

It  had  all  along  been  conceded  by  the  Unionists  that 
the  State  Rights  party  were  in  the  ascendant,  and  the 
great  struggle  at  the  election  was  to  prevent  the  latter 
from  obtaining  the  constitutional  majority  in  the  legis 
lature.  Without  a  majority  of  two  thirds  a  convention 
could  not  be  called,  and  this  was  the  only  mode  in  which, 
as  the  nullifiers  admitted,  the  people  of  the  state  could 
declare  an  act  of  the  United  States  unconstitutional  and 
void.  The  State  Rights  party,  however,  returned  more 
than  the  constitutional  number  to  both  houses.  The 
legislature  convened  on  the  22d  of  October,  1832,  and 
the  first  business  of  the  session  was  the  passage  of  a  law 
authorizing  the  election  of  delegates  to  a  State  Conven 
tion,  to  meet  at  Columbia  on  the  19th  day  of  November 
following. 

Delegates  were  accordingly  chosen,  and  the  Conven 
tion  was  held  at  the  appointed  time.  On  the  24th 
instant  they  adopted  the  celebrated  Ordinance  of  Nulli 
fication,  declaring  the  acts  of  1828  and  1832  absolutely 
null  and  void,  within  the  state  of  South  Carolina;  pro- 


244  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUJV.  [1824-32. 

viding  that  no  appeal  should  be  permitted  to  the  Su 
preme  Court  of  the  United  States  upon  any  question 
concerning  the  validity  of  the  ordinance,  or  of  the  laws 
that  might  be  passed  to  give  effect  thereto ;  prohibiting 
the  authorities  of  the  state,  or  of  the  general  govern 
ment,  from  enforcing  the  payment  of  duties  within  the 
state,  from  and  after  the  1st  day  of  February,  1833; 
and  declaring  that  any  attempt  to  enforce  the  revenue 
laws,  otherwise  than  through  the  civil  tribunals,  would 
be  inconsistent  with  the  longer  continuance  of  South 
Carolina  in  the  Union,  and  the  people  of  the  state  would 
then  proceed  forthwith  to  the  formation  of  an  indepen 
dent  government*  This  ordinance  was  accompanied 
by  two  addresses — one  to  the  people  of  South  Carolina, 
and  the  other  to  the  people  of  the  other  states  in  the 
Union — setting  forth  the  motives  which  had  prompted 
the  adoption  of  the  ordinance,  and  the  principles  upon 
which  it  was  founded.  These  proceedings  were  had 
with  the  knowledge,  and  in  part  under  the  advice,  of 
Mr.  Calhoun  ;  and,  consequently,  they  met  with  his  ap 
probation.  The  Convention  then  adjourned  to  meet 
again  in  March,  after  the  adjournment  of  Congress. 

The  South  Carolina  legislature  being  still  in  session, 
the  necessary  laws  to  give  effect  to  the  ordinance  were 
passed ;  and  as  it  had  been  threatened  by  the  Unionists 
that  the  President  would  direct  the  collection  of  the 
revenue  by  force  of  arms,  "  the  state  placed  itself  in  an 
attitude  of  military  preparation  for  the  defence  of  its 
position ;  organized  and  armed  its  own  phvsical  force  ; 
and  succeeded  in  arousing  so  determined  and  excited  a 
state  of  feeling  in  its  citizens,  that  we  think  there  can 
*  Biles'  Register,  vol.  xliii.  p.  277. 


1824-32.]   ELECTED  A  SENATOR  IN  CONGRESS.     245 

be  no  doubt  that  it  would  have  maintained  its  position 
to  the  last  extremity, — a  position,  manifestly,  exceed 
ingly  difficult  to  be  overcome,  if  thus  maintained,  by 
any  physical  power  which  could  have  been  brought 
against  it."* 

The  proceedings  in  South  Carolina  were  followed  by 
the  proclamation  of  the  President  declaring  the  ordi 
nance  of  the  State  Convention  subversive  of  the  federal 
constitution,  and  his  intention  to  enforce  the  laws  at 
whatever  hazard,  and  warning  the  people  of  the  state 
against  obedience  to  the  ordinance  as  involving  the 
crime  of  treason  against  the  United  States.  Meanwhile, 
General  Hayne,  the  able  and  accomplished  senator  in 
Congress  from  South  Carolina,  had  been  elected  gover 
nor  of  the  state  by  the  legislature  and  had  entered  upon 
the  duties  of  his  office  ;  and  in  reply  to  the  President's 
proclamation,  he  issued  a  counter  proclamation  defend 
ing  the  position  assumed  by  the  state,  and  calling  out 
twelve  thousand  volunteers. 

By  the  election  of  General  Hayne  as  governor,  a 
vacancy  had  been  produced  in  the  representation  of 
the  state  in  Congress.  It  was  important  at  this  par 
ticular  juncture  that  the  state  should  be  represented  in 
the  federal  councils  by  the  ablest  of  her  sons,  and  all 
eyes  were  now  instinctively  turned  toward  Mr.  Calhoun. 
Prior  to  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature,  therefore,  in 
December,  1832,  he  was  chosen  as  the  successor  of 
Mr.  Hayne  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Calhoun  was  prompt  to  regard  the  call  of  his  native 
state  ;  her  claims  were  paramount ;  and  he  readily  con 
sented  to  become  her  champion  and  defender. 
*  Democratic  Review,  A^ril,  1838. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

Journey  to  Washington — Takes  his  Seat  in  the  Senate — Special  Message 
of  the  President — Mr.  Calhoun's  Resolutions — The  Force  Bill — Speech 
against  it — The  Debate — Argument  of  Mr.  Webster — Reply  of  Mr. 
Calhoun — Character  of  this  Effort — Passage  of  the  Compromise  Act — 
Peaceful  Termination  of  the  Controversy. 

THE  Senate  of  the  Union  was  the  theatre  of  Mr. 
Calhoun's  proudest  triumphs — the  great  field  of  his 
usefulness  and  fame.  His  journey  to  Washington  was 
like  that  of  Luther  to  attend  the  diet  at  Worms.  Out 
of  South  Carolina  public  opinion  was  certainly  against 
him,  and  it  was  only  here  and  there  he  found  a  good 
Frondsberg  to  whisper  in  his  ear,  "  If  you  are  sincere, 
and  sure  of  your  cause,  go  on  in  God's  name,  and  fear 
nothing;  God  will  not  forsake  you!" 

It  was  queried  by  many  whether  he  would  not  be 
apprehended,  and  some  stoutly  asserted  that  he  would 
be  arrested  ere  he  reached  Washington.  He  was  called 
the  head  and  front  of  the  nullification  cause,  but  he 
esteemed  it  an  honor  to  be. thus  designated.  He  was 
stigmatized  an  arch-traitor  and  denounced  as  a  dis- 
unionist,  yet  he  pursued  his  way  unmoved  by  clamor 
or  denunciation.  It  was  said  that  he  aimed  to  over- 
thiU\v  tliu  Constitution,  and  that  his  presence  at  the 
capitol  would  endanger  the  peace  and  security  of  the 
Union.  But  Ii3  had  no  such  end  in  view.  His  errand 


1833.]  TAKES    HIS    SEAT    IN    THE    SENATE.  247 

was  one  of  peace.  He  loved  the  Union  too  well  lightly 
to  peril  it.  He  looked  upon  the  state  governments  as 
the  pillars,  to  use  the  language  of  a  distinguished  states 
man  of  New  York,*  "which  support  the  magnificent 
dome  of  our  national  government,"  and  if  but  one  of 
them  should  be  removed,  the  strength  and  beauty  of  the 
edifice  reared  above  them  would  be  gone  forever.  He 
desired,  therefore,  to  make  one  more  last  effort  for  re 
dress,  and  he  could  not  but  feel  assured,  that  if  passions 
and  prejudices  did  not  overrule  the  judgments  of  men, 
it  would  prove  successful. 

Having  resigned  the  office  of  vice-president,  he  took 
his  seat  in  the  Senate  shortly  after  the  commencement 
of  the  session  in  December,  1832.  Many  affected  to 
doubt,  for  those  who  really  understood  his  position 
could  not  have  questioned  his  readiness  to  abide  by  the 
Constitution,  whether  he  would  take  the  oath  of  office. 
The  floor  of  the  senate-chamber  and  the  galleries  were 
thronged  with  spectators.  They  saw  him  take  the  oath 
with  a  solemnity  and  dignity  appropriate  to  the  oc 
casion,  and  then  calmly  seat  himself  on  the  right  of  the 
chair,  among  his  old  political  friends,  nearly  all  of  whom 
were  now  arrayed  against  him. 

In  a  few  days  after  he  entered  the  Senate,  he  intro 
duced  a  resolution,  calling  upon  the  president  to  lay 
before  that  body  the  ordinance  of  South  Carolina,  and 
other  documents  connected  with  it,  which  had  been 
transmitted  to  him  by  the  executive  of  the  state.  Be 
fore  any  action  was  had  upon  the  resolution,  the  special 
message  of  the  president,  dated  the  16th  January, 
1833,  was  sent  in.  This  message  took  strong  ground 
*  De  Witt  Clinton. 


248  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833 

against  South  Carolina,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  felt  that  the 
occasion  required  something  in  the  nature  of  a  reply 
from  him.  He  had  been  out  of  the  habit  of  public 
speaking,  yet  he  could  not  shrink  from  his  duty.  He 
arose,  therefore,  after  the  reading  of  the  message  had 
been  concluded,  and  delivered  an  eloquent  and  effective 
speech  in  defence  of  his  state,  which  he  concluded  by 
declaring,  most  emphatically,  that  if  the  national  gov 
ernment  should  be  brought  back  to  the  principles  of 
1798,  he  would  be  the  last  to  abandon  it. 

The  message  of  the  president  and  the  accompanying 
documents  were  referred  to  the  committee  on  the  judi 
ciary,  of  which  Mr.  Grundy  was  chairman.  Mr. 
Webster  was  also  a  member  of  the  committee,  and  he 
had  publicly  avowed  his  intention  to  use  his  utmost 
efforts  to  put  down  the  nullification  doctrines  of  South 
Carolina.  A  bill,  known  as  the  Force  Bill,  was  soon 
after  reported  by  this  committee,  which  extended  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  courts  of  the  United  States  in  cases 
arising  under  the  revenue  laws,  and  clothing  the  presi 
dent  with  additional  powers.  The  object  of  this  bill, 
which  was  not  disguised,  was  to  enable  the  federal  ex 
ecutive  to  enforce  the  collection  of  the  revenue  in 
South  Carolina.  Mr.  Calhoun  desired  that  the  impor 
tant  constitutional  question  at  issue  should  undergo  a 
preliminary  discussion,  before  the  bill  was  called  up, 
and  with  the  view  of  provoking  debate,  he  introduced 
the  following  resolutions,  affirmatory  of  the  great  prin 
ciples  for  which  he  and  his  "beloved  and  virtuous 
state"  were  contending  : — 

"Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  states  composing  these 
United  States  are  united  as  parties  to  a  constitutional  compact,  to  which 


1833.]  HIS    RESOLUTIONS.  249 

the  people  of  each  state  acceded  as  a  separate  and  sovereign  com 
munity,  each  binding  itself,  by  its  own  particular  ratification ;  and  that 
the  Union,  of.  which  the  said  compact  is  the  bond,  is  a  union  between 
the  states  ratifying  the  same. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  people  of  the  several  states,  thus  united  by  a 
constitutional  compact,  in  forming  that  instrument,  in  creating  a  General 
Government  to  carry  into  effect  the  objects  for  which  it  was  formed, 
delegated  to  that  government,  for  that  purpose,  certain  definite  powers, 
to  be  exercised  jointly,  reserving,  at  the  same  time,  each  state  to  itself, 
the  residuary  mass  of  powers,  to  be  exercised  by  its  own  separate  gov 
ernment;  and  that,  whenever  the  General  Government  assumes  the 
exercise  of  powers  not  delegated  by  the  compact,  its  acts  are  unauthor 
ized,  void,  and  of  no  effect ;  and  that  the  said  government  is  not  made 
the  final  judge  of  the  powers  delegated  to  it,  since  that  would  make 
its  discretion,  and  not  the  Constitution,  the  measure  of  its  powers ;  but 
that,  as  in  all  other  cases  of  compact  among  sovereign  parties,  without 
any  common  judge,  eacli  has  an  equal  right  to  judge  for  itself,  as  well 
of  the  infraction  as  of  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

"Resolved,  That  the  assertions,  that  the  people  of  these  United 
States,  taken  collectively  as  individuals,  are  now,  or  ever  have  been, 
united  on  the  principle  of  the  social  compact,  and,  as  such,  are  now 
formed  into  one  nation  or  people ;  or  that  they  have  ever  been  so  united 
in  any  one  stage  of  their  political  existence ;  or  that  the  people  of  the 
several  states  comprising  the  Union  have  not,  as  members  thereof, 
retained  their  sovereignty ;  or  that  the  allegiance  of  their  citizens  has 
been  transferred  to  the  General  Government ;  or  that  they  have  parted 
with  the  right  of  punishing  treason  through  their  respective  state  gov 
ernments;  or  that  they  have  not  the  right  of  judging,  in  the  last  resort, 
as  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  reserved,  and,  of  consequence,  of  those 
delegated,  are  not  only  without  foundation  in  truth,  but  are  contrary 
to  the  most  certain  and  plain  historical  facts,  and  the  clearest  deductions 
of  reason ;  and  that  all  exercise  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  General 
Government,  or  any  of  its  departments,  deriving  authority  from  such 
erroneous  assumptions,  must  of  necessity  be  unconstitutional;  must 
tend  directly  and  inevitably  to  subvert  the  sovereignty  of  the  states, 
to  destroy  the  federal  character  of  the  Union,  and  to  rear  on  its  ruins  a 
consolidated  government,  without  constitutional  check  or  limitation,  and 
which  must  necessarily  terminate  in  the  loss  of  liberty  itself." 

These  resolutions  covered  the  whole  ground  in  dis- 

11* 


250  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833, 

pute,  and  it  was  but  just  that  the  principles,  involved 
should  be  settled  before  proceeding  to  the  consideration 
of  the  bill ;  for  if  South  Carolina  was  right  in  her  po 
sition,  the  passage  of  the  bill  would  be  a  gross  act  of 
injustice.  But  in  the  progress  of  the  controversy,  many 
bad  feelings  had  been  aroused  on  both  sides,  and  a  dis 
position  was  manifested  on  the  part  of  the  supporters 
of  the  administration,  to  press  matters  to  a  crisis  at 
once.  Under  the  influence  of  this  prevailing  disposi 
tion,  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Calhoun  were  laid  upon 
the  table,  and  the  bill  taken  up  for  discussion.  Previous 
to  this,  however,  Mr.  Grundy  had  offered  a  series  of 
resolutions  declaring  the  several  acts  of  Congress  lay 
ing  duties  on  imports  to  be  constitutional,  and  denying 
the  power  of  a  single  state  to  annul  those  laws  or  any 
other  constitutional  law ;  but  conceding  the  point  in 
favor  of  South  Carolina,  that  with  respect  to  an  uncon 
stitutional  law,  the  states  themselves  were  the  final 
judges,  and  possessed  the  power  of  annulling  it.  Mr. 
Webster,  and  other  senators  occupying  the  extreme 
federal  ground  upon  this  question,  did  not,  of  course, 
approve  of  Mr.  Grundy's  resolutions,  but  they  supported 
the  Force  Bill  with  great  earnestness. 

The  debate  was  ably  conducted.  Many  of  the  re 
publican  senators  from  the  southern  states  opposed  the 
bill  in  effective  speeches,  and  resisted  its  passage  at 
every  step.  Not  a  single  senator  offered  to  take  up 
the  gauntlet  thrown  down  by  Mr.  Calhoun  while  the 
bill  was  pending  before  the  Senate,  although  Mr.  Web 
ster,  in  particular,  was  well  known  to  differ  from  him 
toto  ccelo.  It  had  been  the  intention  of  the  former  to 
reply  to  Mr.  Webster,  but  when  it  became  known  that 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  251 

he  would  not  speak  first,  Mr.  Calhoun  himself  took  the 
floor  in  opposition  to  the  measure,  and  in  defence  of 
South  Carolina.  He  also  replied  to  the  personal  attacks 
which  had  been  made  upon  him,  and  repelled,  in  elo 
quent  and  indignant  terms,  the  charge,  that  he  had 
been  influenced  by  disappointed  ambition. 

SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL. 

MR.  PRESIDENT — 1  know  not  which  is  most  objectionable,  the  provision 
of  the  bill,  or  the  temper  in  which  its  adoption  has  been  urged.  If  the 
extraordinary  powers  with  which  the  bill  proposes  to  clothe  the 
executive,  to  the  utter  prostration  of  the  Constitution  and  the  rights  of 
the  states,  be  calculated  to  impress  our  minds  with  alarm  at  the  rapid 
progress  of  despotism  in  our  country ;  the  zeal  with  which  every 
circumstance  calculated  to  misrepresent  or  exaggerate  the  conduct  of 
Carolina  in  the  controversy,  is  seized  on  with  a  view  to  excite  hostility 
against  her,  but  too  plainly  indicates  the  deep  decay  of  that  brotherly 
feeling  which  once  existed  between  these  states,  and  to  which  we  are 
indebted  for  our  beautiful  federal  system,  and  by  the  continuance  of 
which  alone  it  can  be  preserved.  It  is  not  my  intention  to  advert  to  all 
these  misrepresentations,  but  there  are  some  so  well  calculated  tc 
mislead  the  mind  as  to  the  real  character  of  the  controversy,  and  hold 
up  the  state  in  a  light  so  odious,  that  I  do  not  feel  myself  justified  in, 
permitting  them  to  pass  unnoticed. 

Among  them,  one  of  the  most  prominent  is  the  false  statement  that 
the  object  of  South  Carolina  is  to  exempt  herself  from  her  share  of  the 
public  burdens,  ^hile  she  participates  in  the  advantages  of  the  govern 
ment.  If  the  charge  were  true — if  the  state  were  capable  of  being 
actuated  by  such  low  and  unworthy  motives,  mother  as  I  consider  her, 
I  would  not  stand  up  on  this  floor  to  vindicate  her  conduct.  Among 
her  faults,  and  faults  I  will  not  deny  she  has,  no  one  has  ever  yet 
charged  her  with  that  low  and  most  sordid  of  vices — avarice.  Her  con 
duct,  on  all  occasions,  has  been  marked  with  the  very  opposite  quality. 
From  the  commencement  of  the  Revolution — from  its  first  breaking  out 
at  Boston  till  this  hour,  no  state  has  been  more  profuse  of  its  blood  in 
the  cause  of  the  country,  nor  has  any  contributed  so  largely  to  the 
common  treasury  in  proportion  to  wealth  and  population.  She  has  iu 


252  JOHN    CALPWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

that  proportion  contributed  more  to  the  exports  of  the  Union,  on  the 
exchange  of  which  with  the  rest  of  the  world  the  greater  portion  of  the 
public  burden  has  been  levied,  than  any  other  state.  JSTo :  the  con 
troversy  is  not  such  as  has  been  stated ;  the  state  does  not  seek  to 
participate  in  the  advantages  of  the  government  without  contributing 
her  full  share  to  the  public  treasury.  Her  object  is  far  different.  A 
deep  constitutional  question  lies  at  the  bottom  of  the  controversy.  The 
real  question  at  issue  is,  Has  the  government  a  right  to  impose  burdens 
on  the  capital  and  industry  of  one  portion  of  the  country,  not  with 
a  view  to  revenue,  but  to  benefit  another  ?  and  I  must  be  permitted  to 
say  that,  after  the  long  and  deep  agitation  of  this  controversy,  it  is  with 
surprise  that  I  perceive  so  strong  a  disposition  to  misrepresent  its  real 
character.  To  correct  the  impression  which  those  misrepresentations 
are  calculated  to  make,  I  will  dwell  on  the  point  under  consideration 
for  a  few  moments  longer. 

The  Federal  Government  has,  by  an  express  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution,  the  right  to  lay  duties  on  imports.  The  state  has  never  denied 
or  resisted  this  right,  nor  even  thought  of  so  doing.  The  government 
has,  however,  not  been  contented  with  exercising  this  power  as  she  had 
a  right  to  do,  but  has  gone  a  step  beyond  it,  by  laying  imposts,  not  for 
revenue,  but  for  protection.  This  the  state  considers  as  an  unconstitu 
tional  exercise  of  power — highly  injurious  and  oppressive  to  her  and 
the  other  staple  states,  and  has,  accordingly,  met  it  with  the  most 
determined  resistance.  I  do  not  intend  to  enter,  at  this  time,  into  the 
argument  as  to  the  unconstitutional!  ty  of  the  protective  system.  It  is 
not  necessary.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  power  is  nowhere  granted  ;  and 
that,  from  the  journals  of  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution, 
it  would  seem  that  it  was  refused.  In  support  of  the  journals,  I  might 
cite  the  statement  of  Luther  Martin,  which  has  already  been  referred 
to,  to  show  that  the  Convention,  so  far  from  conferring  the  power  on  the 
Federal  Government,  left  to  the  state  the  right  to  impose  duties  on  im 
ports,  with  the  express  view  of  enabling  the  several  states  to  protect 
their  own  manufactures.  Notwithstanding  this,  Congress  has  assumed, 
without  any  warrant  from  the  Constitution,  the  right  of  exercising  this 
most  important  power,  and  has  so  exercised  it  as  to  impose  a  ruinous 
burden  on  the  labor  and  capital  of  the  state  of  South  Carolina,  by 
•which  her  resources  are  exhausted — the  enjoyments  of  her  citizens 
curtailed — the  means  of  education  contracted — and  all  her  interests 
essentially  and  injuriously  affected.  We  have  been  sneeringly  told  tl;  at 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  253 

she  is  a  small  state ;  that  her  population  does  not  much  exceed  half  a 
million  of  souls  ;  and  that  more  than  one  half  are  not  of  the  European 
race.  The  facts  are  so.  I  know  she  never  can  be  a  great  state,  and 
that  the  only  distinction  to  which  she  can  aspire  must  be  based  on  the 
moral  and  intellectual  acquirements  of  her  sons.  To  the  development 
of  these  much  of  her  attention  has  been  directed  ;  but  this  restrictive 
system,  which  has  so  unjustly  exacted  the  proceeds  of  her  labor,  to  be 
bestowed  on  other  sections,  has  so  impaired  the  resources  of  the  state, 
that,  if  not  speedily  arrested,  it  will  dry  up  the  means  of  education,  and 
with  it  deprive  her  of  the  only  source  through  which  she  can  aspire  to 
distinction. 

There  is  another  misstatement,  as  to  the  nature  of  the  controversy,  so 
frequently  made  in  debate,  and  so  well  calculated  to  mislead,  that  I  feel 
bound  to  notice  it.  It  has  been  said  that  South  Carolina  claims  the 
right  to  annul  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States ;  and  to 
rebut  this  supposed  claim,  the  gentleman  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives)  has 
gravely  quoted  the  Constitution,  to  prove  that  the  Constitution,  and  the 
laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  are  the  supreme  laws  of  the  land — as 
if  the  state  claimed  the  right  to  act  contrary  to  this  provision  of  the 
Constitution.  Nothing  can  be  more  erroneous  :  her  object  is  not  to 
resist  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  the  Constitution,  but  those  made 
without  its  authority,  and  which  encroach  on  her  reserved  powers.  She 
claims  not  even  the  right  of  judging  of  the  delegated  powers  ;  but  of 
those  that  are  reserved,  and  to  resist  the  former,  when  they  encroach 
upon  the  latter.  I  will  pause  to  illustrate  this  important  point. 

All  must  admit  that  there  are  delegated  and  reserved  powers,  and 
that  the  powers  reserved  are  reserved  to  the  states  respectively.  The 
powers,  then,  of  the  system  are  divided  between  the  general  and  the 
state  government;  and  the  point  immediately  under  consideration  is, 
whether  a  state  has  any  right  to  judge  as  to  the  extent  of  its  reserved 
powers,  and  to  defend  them  against  the  encroachments  of  the  General 
Government.  Without  going  deeply  into  this  point  at  this  stage  of  the 
argument,  or  looking  into  the  nature  and  origin  of  the  government,  there 
is  a  simple  view  of  the  subject  which  I  consider  as  conclusive.  The 
very  idea  of  a  divided  power  implies  the  right  on  the  part  of  the  state 
for  which  I  contend.  The  expression  is  metaphorical  when  applied  to 
power.  Every  one  readily  understands  that  the  division  of  matter  con 
sists  in  the  separation  of  the  parts.  But  in  this  sense  it  is  not  applica 
ble  to  power.  What,  then,  is  meant  by  a  division  of  power  ?  I  cannot 


254  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

conceive  of  a  division,  without  giving  an  equal  right  to  each  to  judge  of 
the  extent  of  the  power  allotted  to  each.  Such  right  I  hold  to  be 
essential  to  the  existence  of  a  division  ;  and  that,  to  give  to  either  party 
the  conclusive  right  of  judging,  not  only  of  the  share  allotted  to  it,  but 
of  that  allotted  to  the  other,  is  to  annul  the  division,  and  would  confer 
the  whole  power  on  the  party  vested  with  such  right. 

But  it  is  contended  that  the  Constitution  has  conferred  on  the  Supreme 
Court  the  right  of  judging  between  the  states  and  the  General  Govern 
ment.  Those  who  make  this  objection  overlook,  I  conceive,  an  impor 
tant  provision  of  the  Constitution.  By  turning  to  the  10th  amended 
article,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  reservation  of  power  to  the  states  is  not 
only  against  the  powers  delegated  to  Congress,  but  against  the  United 
States  themselves  ;  and  extends,  of  course,  as  well  to  the  judiciary  as  to 
the  other  departments  of  the  government.  The  article  provides,  that 
all  powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States,  or  prohibited  by  it  to  the 
states,  are  reserved  to  the  states  respectively,  or  to  the  people.  This 
presents  the  inquiry,  What  powers  are  delegated  to  the  United  States  ? 
They  may  be  classed  under  four  divisions  :  first,  those  that  are  delegated 
by  the  states  to  each  other,  by  virtue  of  which  the  Constitution  may  be 
altered  or  amended  by  three  fourths  of  the  states,  when,  without  which, 
it  would  have  required  the  unanimous  vote  of  all ;  next,  the  powers 
conferred  on  Congress ;  then  those  on  the  President ;  and,  finally,  those 
on  the  judicial  department — all  of  which  are  particularly  enumerated 
in  the  parts  of  the  Constitution  which  organize  the  respective  depart 
ments.  The  reservation  of  powers  to  the  states  is,  as  I  have  said, 
against  the  whole,  and  is  as  full  against  the  judicial  as  it  is  against  the 
executive  and  legislative  departments  of  the  government.  It  cannot  be 
claimed  for  the  one  without  claiming  it  for  the  whole,  and  without,  in 
fact,  annulling  this  important  provision  of  the  Constitution. 

Against  this,  as  it  appears  to  me,  conclusive  view  of  the  subject,  it 
has  been  urged  that  this  power  is  expressly  conferred  on  the  Supremo 
Court  by  that  portion  of  the  Constitution  which  provides  that  the  judi 
cial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  in  law  and  equity  arising  under 
the  Constitution,  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  treaties  made 
under  their  authority.  I  believe  the  assertion  to  be  utterly  destitute 
of  any  foundation.  It  obviously  is  the  intention  of  the  Constitution 
simply  to  make  the  judicial  power  commensurate  with  the  law-making 
and  treaty-making  powers ;  and  to  vest  it  with  the  right  of  applying 
the  Constitution,  the  laws,  and  the  treaties,  to  the  cases  which  might 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  255 

arise  under  them ;  and  not  to  make  it  the  judge  of  the  Constitution, 
the  laws,  and  the  treaties  themselves.  In  fact,  the  power  of  applying 
the  laws  to  the  facts  of  the  case,  and  deciding  upon  such  application, 
constitutes,  in  truth,  the  judicial  power.  The  distinction  between  such 
power,  and  that  of  judging  of  the  laws,  will  be  perfectly  apparent 
when  we  advert  to  what  is  the  acknowledged  power  of  the  court  in 
reference  to  treaties  or  compacts  between  sovereigns.  It  is  perfectly 
established,  that  the  courts  have  no  right  to  judge  of  the  violation  of 
treaties ;  and  that,  in  reference  to  them,  their  power  is  limited  to  the 
right  of  judging  simply  of  the  violation  of  rights  under  them  ;  and 
that  the  right  of  judging  of  infractions  belongs  exclusively  to  the  par 
ties  themselves,  and  not  to  the  courts :  of  which  we  have  an  example 
in  the  French  treaty,  which  was  declared  by  Congress  null  and  void,  in 
consequence  of  its  violation  by  the  government  of  France.  Without 
such  declaration,  had  a  French  citizen  sued  a  citizen  of  this  country 
under  the  treaty,  the  court  could  have  taken  no  cognizance  of  its  in 
fraction  ;  nor,  after  such  a  declaration,  would  it  have  heard  any  argu 
ment  or  proof  going  to  show  that  the  treaty  had  not  been  violated. 

The  declaration  of  itself  is  conclusive  on  the  court.  But  it  will  be 
asked  how  the  court  obtained  the  powers  to  pronounce  a  law  or  treaty 
unconstitutional,  when  they  come  in  conflict  with  that  instrument.  I 
do  not  deny  that  it  possesses  the  right,  but  I  can  by  no  means  concede 
that  it  was  derived  from  the  Constitution.  It  had  its  origin  in  the 
necessity  of  the  case.  Where  there  are  two  or  more  rules  established, 
one  from  a  higher,  the  other  from  a  lower  authority,  which  may  come 
into  conflict  in  applying  them  to  a  particular  case,  the  judge  cannot 
avoid  pronouncing  in  favor  of  the  superior  against  the  inferior.  It  is 
from  this  necessity,  and  this  alone,  that  the  power  which  is  now  set  up 
to  overrule  the  rights  of  the  states  against  an  express  provision  of  the 
Constitution  was  derived.  It  had  no  other  origin.  That  I  have  traced 
it  to  its  true  source,  will  be  manifest  from  the  fact  that  it  is  a  power 
which,  so  far  from  being  conferred  exclusively  on  the  Supreme  Court, 
as  is  insisted,  belongs  to  every  court — inferior  and  superior — state  and 
general — and  even  to  foreign  courts. 

But  the  senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton)  relies  on  the  journals 
of  the  Convention  to  prove  that  it  was  the  intention  of  that  body  to 
confer  on  the  Supreme  Court  the  right  of  deciding  in  the  last  resort 
between  a  state  and  the  General  Government.  I  will  not  follow  him 
through  the  journals,  as  I  do  not  deem  that  to  be  necessary  to  refute 


256  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1832-33. 

his  argument.  It  is  sufficient  for  this  purpose  to  state,  that  Mr.  Rut- 
ledge  reported  a  resolution,  providing  expressly  that  the  United  States 
and  the  states  might  be  parties  before  the  Supreme  Court.  If  this 
proposition  had  been  adopted,  I  would  ask  the  senator  •whether  this 
very  controversy  between  the  United  States  and  South  Carolina  might 
not  have  been  brought  before  the  court  ?  I  would  also  ask  him 
•whether  it  can  be  brought  before  the  court  as  the  Constitution  now 
stands  ?  If  he  answers  the  former  in  the  affirmative,  and  the  latter  in 
the  negative,  as  he  must,  then  it  is  clear,  his  elaborate  argument  to  the 
contrary  notwithstanding,  that  the  report  of  Mr.  Rutledge  was  not,  in 
substance,  adopted  as  he  contended  ;  and  that  the  journals,  so  far 
from  supporting,  are  in  direct  opposition  to  the  position  which  he  at 
tempts  to  maintain.  I  might  push  the  argument  much  further  against 
the  power  of  the  court,  but  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary,  at  least  in  this 
stage  of  the  discussion.  If  the  views  which  have  already  been  pre 
sented  be  correct,  and  I  do  not  see  how  they  can  be  resisted,  the  con 
clusion  is  inevitable,  that  the  reserved  powers  were  reserved  equally 
against  every  department  of  the  government,  and  as  strongly  against 
the  judicial  as  against  the  other  departments,  and,  of  course,  were  left 
under  the  exclusive  will  of  the  states. 

There  still  remains  another  misrepresentation  of  the  conduct  of  the 
state  which  has  been  made  with  the  view  of  exciting  odium.  I  allude 
to  the  charge,  that  South  Carolina  supported  the  tariff  of  1816,  and  is, 
therefore,  responsible  for  the  protective  system.  To  determine  the 
truth  of  this  charge,  it  becomes  necessary  to  ascertain  the  real  charac 
ter  of  that  law — whether  it  was  a  tariff  for  revenue  or  for  protection — 
which  presents  the  inquiry,  What  was  the  condition  of  the  country  at 
that  period  ?  The  late  war  with  Great  Britain  had  just  terminated, 
which,  with  the  restrictive  system  that  preceded  it,  had  diverted  a 
large  amount  of  capital  and  industry  from  commerce  to  manufactures, 
particularly  to  the  cotton  and  woollen  branches.  There  was  a  debt,  at 
the  same  time,  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  millions  of  dollars  hanging 
over  the  country,  and  the  heavy  war  duties  were  still  in  existence. 
Under  these  circumstances,  the  question  was  presented,  to  what  point 
the  duties  ought  to  be  reduced.  That  question  involved  another — at 
what  time  the  debt  ought  to  be  paid ;  which  was  a  question  of  policy 
involving  in  its  consideration  all  the  circumstances  connected  with  the 
then  condition  of  the  country.  Among  the  most  prominent  arguments 
in  favor  of  an  early  discharge  of  the  debt  was,  that  the  high  duties 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  257 

which  it  would  require  to  effect  it  would  have,  at  the  same  time,  the 
effect  of  sustaining  the  infant  manufactures,  which  had  been  forced  up 
under  the  circumstances  to  which  I  have  adverted.  This  view  of  the 
subject  had  a  decided  influence  in  determining  in  favor  of  an  early- 
payment  of  the  debt.  The  sinking  fund  was,  accordingly,  raised  from 
seven  to  ten  millions  of  dollars  with  the  provision  to  apply  the  sur 
plus  which  might  remain  in  the  treasury  as  a  contingent  appropriation 
to  that  fund ;  and  the  duties  were  graduated  to  meet  this  increased 
expenditure.  It  was  thus  that  the  policy  and  justice  of  protecting  the 
large  amount  of  capital  and  industry  which  had  been  diverted  by  the 
measures  of  the  government  into  new  channels,  as  I  have  stated,  was 
combined  with  the  fiscal  action  of  the  government,  and  which,  while  it 
secured  a  prompt  payment  of  the  debt,  prevented  the  immense  losses 
to  the  manufacturers  which  would  have  followed  a  sudden  and  great 
reduction.  Still,  revenue  was  the  main  object,  and  protection  but  the 
incidental.  The  bill  to  reduce  the  duties  was  reported  by  the  Com 
mittee  of  Ways  and  Means,  and  not  of  Manufactures,  and  it  proposed 
a  heavy  reduction  on  the  then  existing  rate  of  duties.  But  what  of 
itself,  without  other  evidence,  was  decisive  as  to  the  character  of  the 
bill,  is  the  fact  that  it  fixed  a  much  higher  rate  of  duties  on  the  unpro 
tected  than  on  the  protected  articles.  I  will  enumerate  a  few  leading 
articles  only  :  woollen  and  cotton  above  the  value  of  25  cents  on  the 
square  yard,  though  they  were  the  leading  objects  of  protection,  were 
subject  to  a  permanent  duty  of  only  20  per  cent.  Iron,  another  leading 
article  among  the  protected,  had  a  protection  of  not  more  than  9  per 
cent,  as  fixed  by  the  act,  and  of  but  fifteen  as  reported  in  the  bill. 
These  rates  were  all  below  the  average  duties  as  fixed  in  the  act,  in 
cluding  the  protected,  the  unprotected,  and  even  the  free  articles.  I 
have  entered  into  some  calculation,  in  order  to  ascertain  the  average 
rate  of  duties  under  the  act.  There  is  some  uncertainty  in  the  data, 
but  I  feel  assured  that  it  is  not  less  than  thirty  per  cent,  ad  valorem : 
showing  an  excess  of  the  average  duties  above  that  imposed  on  the 
protected  articles  enumerated  of  more  than  10  per  cent.,  and  thus 
clearly  establishing  the  character  of  the  measure — that  it  was  for  rev 
enue,  and  not  protection. 

Looking  back,  even  at  this  distant  period,  with  all  our  experience,  I 
perceive  but  two  errors  in  the  act :  the  one  in  reference  to  iron,  and  the 
other  the  minimum  duty  on  coarse  cottons.  As  to  the  former,  I  coa- 
ceive  that  the  bill,  as  reported,  proposed  a  duty  relatively  too  low, 


258  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

•which  was  still  farther  reduced  in  its  passage  through  Congress.  The 
duty,  at  first,  was  fixed  at  seventy-five  cents  the  hundred  weight ;  but, 
in  the  last  stage  of  its  passage,  it  was  reduced,  by  a  sort  of  caprice, 
occasioned  by  an  unfortunate  motion,  to  forty-five  cents.  This  injustice 
was  severely  felt  in  Pennsylvania,  the  state,  above  all  others,  most  pro 
ductive  of  iron ;  and  was  the  principal  cause  of  that  great  reaction 
which  has  since  thrown  her  so  decidedly  on  the  side  of  the  protective 
policy.  The  other  error  was  that  as  to  coarse  cottons,  on  which  the 
duty  was  as  much  too  high  as  that  on  iron  was  too  low.  It  introduced, 
besides,  the  obnoxious  minimum  principle,  which  has  since  been  so  mis 
chievously  extended ;  and  to  that  extent,  I  am  constrained,  in  candor, 
to  acknowledge,  as  I  wish  to  disguise  nothing,  the  protective  principle 
was  recognized  by  the  act  of  1816.  How  this  was  overlooked  at  the 
time,  it  is  not  in  my  power  to  say.  It  escaped  my  observation,  which 
I  can  account  for  only  on  the  ground  that  the  principle  was  then  new, 
and  that  my  attention  was  engaged  by  another  important  subject — the 
question  of  the  currency,  then  so  urgent,  and  with  which,  as  chairman 
of  the  committee,  I  was  particularly  charged.  With  these  exceptions,  I 
again  repeat,  I  see  nothing  in  the  bill  to  condemn  ;  yet  it  is  on  the  ground 
that  the  members  from  the  state  voted  for  the  bill,  that  the  attempt  is 
now  made  to  hold  up  Carolina  as  responsible  for  the  whole  system  of 
protection  which  has  since  followed,  though  she  has  resisted  its  progress 
in  every  stage.  Was  there  ever  greater  injustice?  And  how  is  it  to 
be  accounted  for,  but  as  forming  a  part  of  that  systematic  misrepresen 
tation  and  calumny  which  has  been  directed  for  so  many  years,  without 
interruption,  against  that  gallant  and  generous  state  ?  And  why  has 
she  thus  been  assailed  ?  Merely  because  she  abstained  from  taking 
any  part  in  the  Presidential  canvass — believing  that  it  had  degenerated 
into  a  mere  system  of  imposition  on  the  people — controlled,  almost  ex 
clusively,  by  those  whose  object  it  is  to  obtain  the  patronage  of  the 
government,  and  that  without  regard  to  principle  or  policy.  Standing 
apart  from  what  she  considered  a  contest  in  which  the  public  had  no 
interest,  she  has  been  assailed  by  both  parties  with  a  fury  altogether 
unparalleled ;  but  which,  pursuing  the  course  which  she  believed  liberty 
and  duty  required,  she  has  met  with  a  firmness  equal  to  the  fierceness 
of  the  assault.  In  the  midst  of  this  attack,  I  have  not  escaped.  With 
a  view  of  inflicting  a  wound  on  the  state  through  me,  I  have  been  held 
up  as  the  author  of  the  protective  system,  and  one  of  its  most  strenuous 
advocates.  It  is  with  pain  that  I  allude  to  myself  on  so  deep  and  grave 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  259 

a  subject  as  that  now  under  discussion,  and  which,  I  sincerely  believe, 
involves  the  liberty  of  the  country.  I  now  regret  that,  under  the  sense 
of  injustice  which  the  remarks  of  a  senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr. 
Wilkins)  excited  for  the  moment,  I  hastily  gave  my  pledge  to  defend 
myself  against  the  charge  which  has  been  made  in  reference  to  my 
course  in  1816:  not  that  there  will  be  any  difficulty  in  repelling  the 
charge,  but  because  I  feel  a  deep  reluctance  in  turning  the  discussion, 
in  any  degree,  from  a  subject  of  so  much  magnitude  to  one  of  so  little 
importance  as  the  consistency  or  inconsistency  of  myself,  or  any  other 
individual,  particularly  in  connection  with  an  event  so  long  since  passed. 
But  for  this  hasty  pledge,  I  would  have  remained  silent,  as  to  my  own 
course,  on  this  occasion,  and  would  have  borne  with  patience  and  calm 
ness  this,  with  the  many  other  misrepresentations  with  which  I  have 
been  so  incessantly  assailed  for  so  many  years. 

The  charge  that  I  was  the  author  of  the  protective  system  has  no 
other  foundation  but  that  I,  in  common  with  the  almost  entire  South, 
gave  my  support  to  the  tariff  of  1816.  It  is  true  that  I  advocated  that 
measure,  for  which  I  may  rest  my  defence,  without  taking  any  other, 
on  the  ground  that  it  was  a  tariff  for  revenue,  and  not  for  protection, 
which  I  have  established  beyond  the  power  of  controversy.  But  mv 
speech  on  the  occasion  has  been  brought  in  judgment  against  me  by  the 
senator  from  Pennsylvania.  I  have  since  cast  my  eyes  over  the  speech ; 
and  I  will  surprise,  I  have  no  doubt,  the  senator,  by  telling  him  that, 
with  the  exception  of  some  hasty  and  unguarded  expressions,  I  retract 
nothing  I  uttered  on  that  occasion.  I  only  ask  that  I  may  be  judged, 
in  reference  to  it,  in  that  spirit  of  fairness  and  justice  which  is  due  to 
the  occasion :  taking  into  consideration  the  circumstances  under  which 
it  was  delivered,  and  bearing  in  mind  that  the  subject  was  a  tariff  for 
revenue,  and  not  for  protection  ;  for  reducing,  and  not  raising  the 
revenue.  But,  before  I  explain  the  then  condition  of  the  country,  from 
which  my  main  arguments  in  favor  of  the  measure  were  drawn,  it  is 
nothing  but  an  act  of  justice  to  myself  that  I  should  state  a  fact  in  con 
nection  with  my  speech,  that  is  necessary  to  explain  what  I  have  called 
hasty  and  unguarded  expressions.  My  speech  was  an  impromptu, 
and,  as  such,  I  apologized  to  the  house,  as  appears  from  the  speech  as 
printed,  for  offering  my  sentiments  on  the  question  without  having  duly 
reflected  on  the  subject.  It  was  delivered  at  the  request  of  a  friend, 
when  I  had  not  previously  the  least  intention  of  addressing  the  house. 
I  allude  to  Samuel  D.  Ingham,  then  and  now,  as  I  am  proud  to  say,  a 


260  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

personal  and  political  friend — a  man  of  talents  and  integrity — with  a 
clear  head,  and  firm  and  patriotic  heart ;  then  among  the  leading  mem 
bers  of  the  house :  in  the  palmy  state  of  his  political  glory,  though  now 
for  a  moment  depressed — depressed,  did  I  say?  no!  it  is  his  state 
which  is  depressed — Pennsylvania,  and  not  Samuel  D.  Ingham  1  Penn 
sylvania,  which  has  deserted  him  under  circumstances  which,  instead 
of  depressing,  ought  to  have  elevated  him  in  her  estimation.  He  came 
to  me,  when  sitting  at  my  desk  writing,  and  said  that  the  house  was 
falling  into  some  confusion,  accompanying  it  with  a  remark,  that  I  knew 
how  difficult  it  was  to  rally  so  large  a  body  when  once  broken  on  a  tax 
bill,  as  had  been  experienced  during  the  late  war.  Having  a  higher 
opinion  of  my  influence  than  it  deserved,  he  requested  me  to  say  some 
thing  to  prevent  the  confusion.  I  replied  that  I  was  at  a  loss  what  to 
say ;  that  I  had  been  busily  engaged  on  the  currency,  which  was  then 
in  great  confusion,  and  which,  as  I  have  stated,  had  been  placed  par 
ticularly  under  my  charge,  as  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  that 
subject.  He  repeated  his  request,  and  the  speech  which  the  senator 
from  Pennsylvania  has  complimented  so  highly  was  the  result. 

I  will  ask  whether  the  facts  stated  ought  not,  in  justice,  to  be  borne 
in  mind  by  those  who  would  hold  me  accountable,  not  only  for  the 
general  scope  of  the  speech,  but  for  every  word  and  sentence  which  it 
contains  ?  But,  in  asking  this  question,  it  is  not  my  intention  to  repu 
diate  the  speech.  All  I  ask  is,  that  I  may  be  judged  by  the  rules 
which,  in  justice,  belong  to  the  case.  Let  it  be  recollected  that  the  bill 
was  a  revenue  bill,  and,  of  course,  that  it  was  constitutional.  I  need 
not  remind  the  senate  that,  when  the  measure  is  constitutional,  all 
arguments  calculated  to  show  its  beneficial  operation  may  be  legiti 
mately  pressed  into  service,  without  taking  into  consideration  whether 
the  subject  to  which  the  arguments  refer  be  within  the  sphere  of  the 
Constitution  or  not.  If,  for  instance,  a  question  were  before  the  body 
to  lay  a  duty  on  Bibles,  and  a  motion  were  made  to  reduce  the  duty, 
or  admit  Bibles  duty  free,  who  could  doubt  that  the  argument  in  favor 
of  the  motion,  that  the  increased  circulation  of  the  Bible  would  be  in 
favor  of  the  morality  and  religion  of  the  country,  would  be  strictly  pro 
per  ?  Or  who  would  suppose  that  he  who  adduced  it  had  committed 
himself  on  the  constitutionality  of  taking  the  religion  or  morals  of  the 
country  under  the  charge  of  the  Federal  Government?  Again:  sup 
pose  the  question  to  be  to  raise  the  duty  on  silk,  or  any  other  article 
of  luxury,  and  that  it  should  be  supported  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  261 

article  mainly  consumed  b}  J.he  rich  and  extravagant,  could  it  be  fairly- 
inferred  that,  in  the  opinion  of  the  speaker,  Congress  had  a  right  to 
pass  sumptuary  laws  ?  I  only  ask  that  these  plain  rules  may  be  ap 
plied  to  my  argument  on  the  tariff  of  1816.  They  turn  almost  entirely 
on  the  benefits  which  manufactures  conferred  on  the  country  in  time 
of  war,  and  which  no  one  could  doubt.  The  country  had  recently 
passed  through  such  a  state.  The  world  was  at  that  time  deeply 
agitated  by  the  effects  of  the  great  conflict  which  had  so  long  raged  in 
Europe,  and  which  no  one  could  tell  how  soon  again  might  return. 
Bonaparte  had  but  recently  been  overthrown :  the  whole  southern  part 
of  this  continent  was  in  a  state  of  revolution,  and  was  threatened  with 
the  interference  of  the  Holy  Alliance,  which,  had  it  occurred,  must 
almost  necessarily  have  involved  this  country  in  a  dangerous  conflict. 
It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  I  delivered  the  speech,  in  which 
I  urged  the  house  that,  in  the  adjustment  of  the  tariff,  reference  ought 
to  be  had  to  a  state  of  war  as  well  us  peace,  and  that  its  provisions 
ought  to  be  fixed  on  the  compound  views  of  the  two  periods — making 
some  sacrifice  in  peace,  in  order  that  less  might  be  made  in  war.  Was 
this  principle  false  ?  and,  in  urging  it,  did  I  commit  myself  to  that  sys 
tem  of  oppression  since  grown  up,  and  which"  has  for  its  object  the 
enriching  of  one  portion  of  the  country  at  the  expense  of  the  other  ? 

The  plain  rule  in  all  such  cases  is,  that  when  a  measure  is  proposed, 
the  first  thing  is  to  ascertain  its  constitutionality ;  and,  that  being  ascer 
tained,  the  next  is  its  expediency  ;  which  last  opens  the  whole  field  of 
argument  for  and  against.  Every  topic  may  be  urged  calculated  to  prove 
it  wise  or  unwise  ;  so  in  a  bill  to  raise  imposts.  It  must  first  be  ascer 
tained  that  the  bill  is  based  on  the  principles  of  revenue,  and  that  the 
money  raised  is  necessary  for  the  wants  of  the  country.  These  being 
ascertained,  every  argument,  direct  and  indirect,  may  be  fairly  offered, 
which  may  go  to  show  that  under  all  the  circumstances,  the  provisions 
of  the  bill  are  proper  or  improper.  Had  this  plain  and  simple  rule 
been  adhered  to,  we  should  never  have  heard  of  the  complaint  against 
Carolina.  Her  objection  is  not  against  the  improper  modification  of  a 
bill  acknowledged  to  be  for  revenue,  but  that,  under  the  name  of  imposts, 
a  power  essentially  different  from  the  taxing  power  is  exercised — par 
taking  much  more  of  the  character  of  a  penalty  than  a  tax.  Nothing  is 
more  common  than  that  things  closely  resembling  in  appearance  should 
widely  and  essentially  differ  in  their  character.  Arsenic,  for  instance, 
resembles  flour,  vet  one  is  a  deadly  poison,  and  the  other  that  which 


262  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

constitutes  the  staff  of  life.  So  duties  imposed,  whether  for  revenue  or 
protection,  may  be  called  imposts ;  though  nominally  and  apparently 
the  same,  yet  they  differ  essentially  in  their  real  character. 

I  shall  now  return  to  my  speech  on  the  tariff  of  1816.  To  determine 
what  my  opinions  really  were  on  the  subject  of  protection  at  that  time, 
it  will  be  proper  to  advert  to  my  sentiments  before  and  after  that 
period.  My  sentiments  preceding  1816,  on  this  subject,  are  matter  of 
record.  I  came  into  Congress,  in  1812,  a  devoted  friend  and  supporter 
of  the  then  administration  ;  yet  one  of  my  first  efforts  was  to  brave  the 
administration,  by  opposing  its  favorite  measure,  the  restrictive  system 
— embargo,  non-intercourse,  and  all — and  that  upon  the  principle  of 
free  trade.  The  system  remained  in  fashion  for  a  time ;  but,  after  the 
overthrow  of  Bonaparte,  I  reported  a  bill  from  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations,  to  repeal  the  whole  system  of  restrictive  measures.  While 
the  bill  was  under  consideration,  a  worthy  man,  then  a  member  of  the 
house  (Mr.  M'Kim,  of  Baltimore),  moved  to  except  the  non-importation 
act,  which  he  supported  on  the  ground  of  encouragement  to  manufac 
tures.  I  resisted  the  motion  on  the  very  grounds  on  which  Mr.  M'Kim 
supported  it.  I  maintained  that  the  manufacturers  were  then  receiving 
too  much  protection,  and  warned  its  friends  that  the  withdrawal  of  the 
protection  which  the  war  and  the  high  duties  then  afforded  would  cause 
great  embarrassment ;  and  that  the  true  policy,  in  the  mean  time,  was 
to  admit  foreign  goods  as  freely  as  possible,  in  order  to  diminish  the  an 
ticipated  embarrassment  on  the  return  of  peace  ;  intimating,  at  the  same 
time,  my  desire  to  see  the  tariff  revised,  with  a  view  of  affording  a 
moderate  and  permanent  protection. 

Such  was  my  conduct  before  1816.  Shortly  after  that  period  I  left 
Congress,  and  had  no  opportunity  of  making  known  my  sentiments  in 
reference  to  the  protective  system,  which  shortly  after  began  to  be  agi 
tated.  But  I  have  the  most  conclusive  evidence  that  I  considered  the 
arrangement  of  the  revenue,  in  1816,  as  growing  out  of  the  necessity  of 
the  case,  and  due  to  the  consideration  of  justice  ;  but  that,  even  at  that 
early  period,  I'was  not  without  my  fears  that  even  that  arrangement 
would  lead  to  abuse  and  future  difficulties.  I  regret  that  I  have  been 
compelled  to  dwell  so  long  on  myself;  but  trust  that,  whatever  censure 
may  be  incurred,  will  not  be  directed  against  me,  but  against  those  who 
have  drawn  my  conduct  into  the  controversy ;  and  who  may  hope,  by 
assailing  my  motives,  to  wound  the  cause  with  which  I  am  proud  to  be 
identified. 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  263 

I  may  add,  that  all  the  Southern  States  voted  with  South  Carolina  in 
support  of  the  bill :  not  that  they  had  any  interest  in  manufactures,  but 
oa  the  ground  that  they  had  supported  the  war,  and,  of  course,  felt  a 
corresponding  obligation  to  sustain  those  establishments  which  had 
grown  up  under  the  encouragement  it  had  incidentally  afforded  ;  while 
most  of  the  New  England  members  were  opposed  to  the  measure,  prin 
cipally,  as  I  believe,  on  opposite  principles. 

I  have  now,  I  trust,  satisfactorily  repelled  the  charge  against  the 
state,  and  myself  personally,  in  reference  to  the  tariff  of  1816.  "What 
ever  support  the  state  has  given  the  bill,  originated  in  the  most  disin 
terested  motives. 

There  was  not  within  the  limits  of  the  state,  so  far  as  my  memory- 
serves  me,  a  single  cotton  or  woollen  establishment.  Her  whole  depen 
dence  was  on  agriculture,  and  the  cultivation  of  two  great  staples,  rice 
and  cotton.  Her  obvious  policy  was  to  keep  open  the  market  of  the 
world  unchecked  and  unrestricted :  to  buy  cheap,  and  to  sell  high  ;  but 
from  a  feeling  of  kindness,  combined  with  a  sense  of  justice,  she  added 
her  support  to  the  bill.  We  had  been  told  by  the  agents  of  the  manu 
facturers  that  the  protection  which  the  measure  afforded  would  be  suf 
ficient  ;  to  which  we  the  more  readily  conceded,  as  it  was  considered  a 
final  adjustment  of  the  question. 

Let  us  now  turn  our  eyes  forward,  and  see  what  has  been  the  conduct 
of  the  parties  to  this  arrangement.  Have  Carolina  and  the  South  dis 
turbed  this  adjustment  ?  No :  they  have  never  raised  their  voice  in  a 
single  instance  against  it,  even  though  this  measure,  moderate,  compara 
tively,  as  it  is,  was  felt  with  no  inconsiderable  pressure  on  their  inter 
ests.  Was  this  example  imitated  on  the  opposite  side  ?  Far  other 
wise.  Scarcely  had  the  president  signed  his  name,  before  application 
was  made  for  an  increase  of  duties,  which  was  repeated,  with  demands 
continually  growing,  till  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1828.  What  course 
now,  I  would  ask,  did  it  become  Carolina  to  pursue  in  reference  to  these 
demands  ?  Instead  of  acquiescing  in  them,  because  she  had  acted  gen 
erously  in  adjusting  the  tariff  of  1816,  she  saw,  in  her  generosity  on 
that  occasion,  additional  motives  for  that  firm  and  decided  resistance 
which  she  has  since  made  againrt  the  system  of  protection.  She  accord 
ingly  commenced  a  systematic  opposition  to  all  farther  encroachments, 
which  continued  from  1818  till  1828  :  by  discussions  and  by  resolutions, 
by  remonstrances  and  by  protests  through  her  Legislature.  These  all 
proved  insufficient  to  stem  the  current  of  encroachment ;  but,  notwith- 


264  JOHN    CALBWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33 

standing  the  heavy  pressure  on  her  industry,  she  never  despaired  of 
relief  till  the  passage  of  the  act  of  1828- — that  bill  of  abominations — ei> 
gendered  by  avarice  and  political  intrigue.  Its  adoption  opened  the 
eyes  of  the  state,  and  gave  a  new  character  to  the  controversy.  Till 
then,  the  question  had  been,  whether  the  protective  system  was  consti 
tutional  and  expedient ;  but,  after  that,  she  no  longer  considered  tho 
question  whether  the  right  of  regulating  the  industry  of  the  states  was 
a  reserved  or  delegated  power,  but  what  right  a  state  possesses  to  de 
fend  her  reserved  powers  against  the  encroachments  of  the  Federal 
Government :  a  question  on  the  decision  of  which  the  value  of  all  the 
reserved  powers  depends.  The  passage  of  the  act  of  1828,  with  all  its 
objectionable  features,  and  under  tive  odious  circumstances  under  which 
it  was  adopted,  almost,  if  not  entirely,  closed  the  door  of  hope  through 
the  General  Government  It  afftvrded  conclusive  evidence  that  no  rea 
sonable  prospect  of  relief  from  Congress  could  be  entertained ;  yet  the 
near  approach  of  the  period  of  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  and  the 
elevation  of  General  Jackson  to  the  presidency,  still  afforded  a  ray  of 
hope — not  so  strong,  however,  as  to  prevent  the  state  from  turning  her 
eyes  for  final  relief  to  her  reserved  powers. 

Under  these  circumstances  commenced  that  inquiry  into  the  nature 
and  extent  of  the  reserved  powers  of  a  state,  and  the  means  which  they 
afford  of  resistance  against  the  eacroachments  of  the  General  Govern 
ment,,  which  has  been  pursued  with  so  much  zeal  and  energy,  and,  \ 
may  add,  intelligence.  Never  was  these  a  political  discussion  carried 
on  with  greater  activity,  and  which  appealed  more  directly  to  the 
intelligence  of  a  community.  Throughout  the  whole,  no  address  has- 
been  made  to  the  low  and  vulgar  passions ;  but,  on  the  contrary,  the 
discussion  has  turned  upon  the  higher  principles  of  political  economy, 
connected  with  the  operations  of  the  tariff  system,  calculated  to  show  its 
real  bearing  on  the  interests  of  the  state,  and  on  the  structure  of  our 
political  system ;  and  to  show  the  true  character  of  the  relations  between 
the  state  and  the  General  Government,  and  the  means  which  the  states 
possess  of  defending  those  powers  which  they  reserved  in  forming  tho 
Federal  Government. 

In  this  great  canvass,  men  of  the  most  commanding  talents  and 
acquirements  have  engaged  with  the  greatest  ardor;  and  the  people 
have  been  addressed  through  every  channel — by  essays  in  the  public 
press,  and  by  speeches  in  their  public  assemblies — until  they  hava 
become  thoroughly  instructed  on  the  nature  of  the  oppression,  and 


1832-33.]        SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  265 

on  the  rights  which  they  possess,  under  the  Constitution,  to  throw 
it  off. 

If  gentlemen  suppose  that  the  stand  taken  by  the  people  of  Carolina 
rests  on  passion  and  delusion,  they  are  wholly  mistaken.  The  case  is 
far  otherwise.  No  community,  from  the  legislator  to  the  ploughman, 
were  ever  better  instructed  in  their  rights ;  and  the  resistance  on  which 
the  state  has  resolved  is  the  result  of  mature  reflection,  accompanied 
with  a  deep  conviction  that  their  rights  have  been  violated,  and  thai  the 
means  of  redress  which  they  have  adopted  are  consistent  with  the 
principles  of  the  Constitution. 

But  while  this  active  canvass  was  carried  on,  which  looked  to  the 
reserved  pwwers  as  the  final  means  of  redress  if  all  others  failed,  the 
state  at  the  same  time  cherished  a  hope,  as  I  have  already  stated,  that 
the  election  of  General  Jackson  to  the  presidency  would  prevent  the 
necessity  of  a  resort  to  extremities.  He  was  identified  with  the  interests 
of  the  staple  states ;  and,  having  the  same  interests,  it  was  believed  that 
his  great  popularity — a  popularity  of  the  strongest  character,  as  it 
rested  on  military  services — would  enable  him,  as  they  hoped,  gradually 
to  bring  down  the  system  of  protection,  without  shock  or  injury  to  any 
interest.  Under  these  views,  the  canvass  in  favor  of  General  Jackson's 
election  to  the  presidency  was  carried  on  with  great  zeal,  in  conjunction 
with  that  active  inquiry  into  the  reserved  powers  of  the  states  on 
which  final  reliance  was  placed.  But  little  did  the  people  of  Carolina 
dream  that  the  man  whom  they  were  thus  striving  to  elevate  to  the 
highest  seat  of  power  would  disappoint  all  their  hopes.  Man  is,  indeed, 
ignorant  of  the  future ;  nor  was  there  ever  a  stronger  illustration  of  the 
observation  than  is  afforded  by  the  result  of  that  election  !  The  very 
event  on  which  they  had  built  their  hopes  has  been  turned  against  them, 
and  the  very  individual  to  whom  they  looked  as  a  deliverer,  and  whom, 
under  that  impression,  they  strove  for  so  many  years  to  elevate  to 
power,  is  now  the  most  powerful  instrument  in  the  hands  of  his  and 
their  bitterest  opponents  to  put  down  them  and  their  cause  ! 

Scarcely  had  he  been  elected,  when  it  became  apparent,  from  the 
organization  of  his  cabinet,  and  other  indications,  that  all  their  expecta 
tions  of  relief  through  him  were  blasted.  The  admission  of  a  single 
individual  into  the  cabinet,  under  the  circumstances  which  accompanied 
that  admission,  threw  all  into  confusion.  The  mischievous  influence 
over  the  President,  through  which  this  individual  was  admitted  into  the 
cabinet,  soon  became  apparent.  Instead  of  turning  his  eyes  forward  to 

12 


266  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

the  period  of  the  payment  of  the  public  debt,  which  was  then  near  at 
hand,  and  to  the  present  dangerous  political  crisis,  which  was  inevitable 
unless  averted  by  a  timely  and  wise  system  of  measures,  the  attention 
of  the  President  was  absorbed  by  mere  party  arrangements,  and 
circumstances  too  disreputable  to  be  mentioned  here,  except  by  the 
most  distant  allusion. 

Here  I  must  pause  for  a  moment  to  repel  a  charge  which  has  been  so 
often  made,  and  which  even  the  President  has  reiterated  in  his  proclama 
tion — the  charge  that  I  have  been  actuated,  in  the  part  which  I  have 
taken,  by  feelings  of  disappointed  ambition.  I  again  repeat,  that  I 
deeply  regret  the  necessity  of  noticing  myself  in  so  important  a  discus 
sion  ;  and  that  nothing  can  induce  me  to  advert  to  my  own  course  but 
the  conviction  that  it  is  due  to  the  cause,  at  which  a  blow  is  aimed 
through  me.  It  is  only  in  this  view  that  I  notice  it. 

It  illy  became  the  chief  magistrate  to  make  this  charge.  The  course 
which  the  state  took,  and  which  led  to  the  present  controversy  between 
her  and  the  General  Government,  was  taken  as  far  back  as  1828 — iu  the 
very  midst  of  that  severe  canvass  which  placed  him  in  power — and  in 
that  very  canvass  Carolina  openly  avowed  and  zealously  maintained 
those  very  principles  which  he,  the  chief  magistrate,  now  officially  pro 
nounces  to  be  treason  and  rebellion.  That  was  the  period  at  which  he 
ought  to  have  spoken.  Having  remained  silent  then,  and  having,  under 
his  approval,  implied  by  that  silence,  received  the  support  and  the  vote 
of  the  state,  I,  if  a  sense  of  decorum  did  not  prevent  it,  might  recriminate 
with  the  double  charge  of  deception  and  ingratitude.  My  object,  how 
ever,  is  not  to  assail  the  President,  but  to  defend  myself  against  a  most 
unfounded  charge.  The  time  alone  at  which  the  course  upon  which  this 
charge  of  disappointed  ambition  is  founded,  will  of  itself  repel  it,  in  the 
eye  of  every  unprejudiced  and  honest  man.  The  doctrine  which  I  now 
sustain,  under  the  present  difficulties,  I  openly  avowed  and  maintained 
immediately  after  the  act  of  1828,  that  "  bill  of  abominations,"  as  it  has 
been  so  often  and  properly  termed.  Was  I  at  that  period  disappointed 
in  any  views  of  ambition  which  I  might  be  supposed  to  entertain  ?  I 
•was  Vice-president  of  the  United  States,  elected  by  an  overwhelming 
majority.  I  was  a  candidate  for  re-election  on  the  ticket  with  General 
Jackson  himself,  with  a  certain  prospect  of  a  triumphant  success  of  that 
ticket,  and  with  a  fair  prospect  of  the  highest  office  to  which  an  American 
citizen  can  aspire.  What  was  my  course  under  these  prospects  ?  Did 
I  look  to  my  own  advancement,  or  to  an  honest  and  faithful  discharge 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  267 

of  my  duty  ?  Let  facts  speak  for  themselves.  When  the  bill  to  which 
I  have  referred  came  from  the  other  house  to  the  Senate,  the  almost 
universal  impression  was,  that  its  fate  would  depend  upon  my  casting 
vote.  It  was  known  that,  as  the  bill  then  stood,  the  Senate  was  nearly 
equally  divided ;  and  as  it  was  a  combined  measure,  originating  with  the 
politicians  and  manufacturers,  and  intended  as  much  to  bear  upon  the 
Presidential  election  as  to  protect  manufactures,  it  was  believed  that, 
as  a  stroke  of  political  policy,  its  fate  would  be  made  to  depend  on  my 
vote,  in  order  to  defeat  General  Jackson's  election,  as  well  as  my  own. 
The  friends  of  General  Jackson  were  alarmed,  and  I  was  earnestly 
entreated  to  leave  the  chair  in  order  to  avoid  the  responsibility,  under 
the  plausible  argument  that,  if  the  Senate  should  be  equally  divided,  the 
bill  would  be  lost  without  the  aid  of  my  casting  vote.  The  reply  to  this 
entreaty  was,  that  no  consideration  personal  to  myself  could  induce  me 
to  take  such  a  course ;  that  I  considered  the  measure  as  of  the  most 
dangerous  character,  and  calculated  to  produce  the  most  fearful  crisis ; 
that  the  payment  of  the  public  debt  was  just  at  hand ;  and  that  the 
great  increase  of  revenue  which  it  would  pour  into  the  treasury  would 
accelerate  the  approach  of  that  period,  and  that  the  country  would  be 
placed  in  the  most  trying  of  situations — with  an  immense  revenue 
without  the  means  of  absorption  upon  any  legitimate  or  constitutional 
object  of  appropriation,  and  would  be  compelled  to  submit  to  all  the 
corrupting  consequences  of  a  large  surplus,  or  to  make  a  sudden  reduc 
tion  of  the  rates  of  duties,  which  would  prove  ruinous  to  the  very 
interests  which  were  then  forcing  the  passage  of  the  bill.  Under  these 
views  I  determined  to  remain  in  the  chair,  and  if  the  bill  came  to  me,  to 
give  my  casting  vote  against  it,  and  in  doing  so,  to  give  my  reasons  at 
large ;  but  at  the  same  time  I  informed  my  friends  that  I  would  retire 
from  the  ticket,  so  that  the  election  of  General  Jackson  might  not  be 
embarrassed  by  any  act  of  mine  Sir,  I  was  amazed  at  the  folly  and 
infatuation  of  that  period.  So  completely  absorbed  was  Congress  in 
the  game  of  ambition  and  avarice,  from  the  double  impulse  of  the 
manufacturers  and  politicians,  that  none  but  a  few  appeared  to  anticipate 
the  present  crisis,  at  which  now  all  are  alarmed,  but  which  is  the 
inevitable  result  of  what  was  then  done.  As  to  myself,  I  clearly  fore 
saw  what  has  since  followed.  The  road  of  ambition  lay  open  before 
me — I  had  but  to  follow  the  corrupt  tendency  of  the  times — but  I 
chose  to  tread  the  rugged  path  of  duty. 

It  was  thus  that  the  reasonable  hope  of  relief  through  the  election  of 


268  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

General  Jackson  was  blasted ;  but  still  one  other  hope  remained,  that 
the  final  discharge  of  the  public  debt — an  event  near  at  hand — would 
remove  our  burden.  That  event  would  leave  in  the  treasury  a  large 
surplus;  a  surplus  that  could  not  be  expended  under  the  most  extrava 
gant  schemes  of  appropriation,  having  the  least  color  of  decency  or  con 
stitutionality.  That  event  at  last  arrived.  At  the  last  session  of  Con 
gress,  k  was  avowed  on  all  sides  that  the  public  debt,  for  all  practical 
purposes,  was  in  fact  paid,  the  small  surplus  remaining  being  nearly 
covered  by  the  money  in  the  treasury  and  the  bonds  for  duties,  which 
had  already  accrued ;  but  with  the  arrival  of  this  event  our  last  hope 
was  doomed  to  be  disappointed.  After  a  long  session  of  many  months, 
and  the  most  earnest  effort  on  the  part  of  South  Carolina  and  the  other 
Southern  States  to  obtain  relief,  all  that  could  be  effected  was  a  small 
reduction  in  the  amount  of  the  duties  ;  but  a  reduction  of  such  a  char 
acter,  that,  while  it  diminished  the  amount  of  burden,  distributed  that 
burden  more  unequally  than  even  the  obnoxious  act  of  1828  ;  reversing 
the  principle  adopted  by  the  bill  of  1816,  of  laying  higher  duties  on  the 
unprotected  than  the  protected  articles,  by  repealing  almost  entirely  the 
duties  laid  upon  the  former,  and  imposing  the  burden  almost  entirely  on 
the  latter.  It  was  thus  that  instead  of  relief — instead  of  an  equal  dis 
tribution  of  the  burdens  and  benefits  of  the  government,  on  the  payment 
of  the  debt,  as  had  been  fondly  anticipated — the  duties  were  so  arranged 
as  to  be,  in  fact,  bounties  on  one  side  and  taxation  on  the  other ;  thus 
placing  the  two  great  sections  of  the  country  in  direct  conflict  in  refer 
ence  to  its  fiscal  action,  and  thereby  letting  in  that  flood  of  political  cor 
ruption  which  threatens  to  sweep  away  our  Constitution  and  our  liberty. 

This  unequal  and  unjust  arrangement  was  pronounced,  both  by  the 
administration,  through  its  proper  organ,  the  secretary  of  the  treasury, 
and  by  the  opposition,  to  be  a.  permanent  adjustment ;  and  it  was  thus 
that  all  hope  of  relief  through  the  action  of  the  General  Government 
terminated,  and  the  crisis  so  long  apprehended  at  length  arrived,  at 
which  the  state  was  compelled  to  choose  between  absolute  acquiescence 
in  a  ruinous  system  of  oppression,  or  a  resort  to  her  reserved  powers — 
powers  of  which  she  alone  was  the  rightful  judge,  and  which  only,  in 
this  momentous  juncture,  can  save  her.  She  determined  on  the  latter. 

The  consent  of  two  thirds  of  her  Legislature  was  necessary  for  the 
call  of  a  convention,  which  was  considered  the  only  legitimate  organ 
through  which  the  people,  in  their  sovereignty,  could  speak.  After  an 
arduous  struggle,  the  State  Rights  party  succeeded :  more  than  two 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  269 

thirds  of  both  branches  of  the  Legislature  favorable  to  a  convention 
were  elected ;  a  convention  was  called — the  ordinance  adopted.  The 
convention  was  succeeded  by  a  meeting  of  the  Legislature,  when  the 
laws  to  carry  the  ordinance  into  execution  were  enacted  :  all  of  which 
have  been  communicated  by  the  President,  have  been  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary,  and  this  bill  is  the  result  of  their  labor. 

Having  now  corrected  some  of  the  prominent  misrepresentations  us 
to  the  nature  of  this  controversy,  and  given  a  rapid  sketch  of  the  move 
ment  of  the  state  in  reference  to  it,  I  will  next  proceed  to  notice  some 
objections  connected  with  the  ordinance  and  the  proceedings  under  it. 

The  first  and  most  prominent  of  these  is  directed  against  what  is  call 
ed  the  test  oath,  which  an  effort  has  been  made  to  render  odious.  So 
far  from  deserving  the  denunciation  which  has  been  levelled  against  it, 
I  view  this  provision  of  the  ordinance  as  but  the  natural  result  of  the 
doctrines  entertained  by  the  state,  and  the  position  which  she  occupies. 
The  people  of  the  state  believe  that  the  Union  is  a  union  of  states,  and 
not  of  individuals ;  that  it  was  formed  by  the  states,  and  that  the  citi 
zens  of  the  several  states  were  bound  to  it  through  the  acts  of  their 
several  states  ;  that  each  state  ratified  the  Constitution  for  itself,  and 
that  it  was  only  by  such  ratification  of  a  state  that  any  obligation  was 
imposed  upon  the  citizens  :  thus  believing,  it  is  the  opinion  of  the  people 
of  Carolina  that  it  belongs  to  the  state  which  has  imposed  the  obligation 
to  declare,  in  the  last  resort,  the  extent  of  this  obligation,  as  far  as  her 
citizens  are  concerned ;  and  this  upon  the  plain  principles  which  exist 
in  all  analogous  cases  of  compact  between  sovereign  bodies.  On  this 
principle,  the  people  of  the  state,  acting  in  their  sovereign  capacity  in 
convention,  precisely  as  they  adopted  their  own  and  the  federal  Consti 
tution,  have  declared  by  the  ordinance,  that  the  acts  of  Congress  which 
imposed  duties  under  the  authority  to  lay  imposts,  are  acts,  not  for 
revenue,  as  intended  by  the  Constitution,  but  for  protection,  and  there 
fore  null  and  void.  The  ordinance  thus  enacted  by  the  people  of  the 
state  themselves,  acting  as  a  sovereign  community,  is  as  obligatory  on 
the  citizens  of  the  state  as  any  portion  of  the  Constitution.  In  prescrib 
ing,  then,  the  oath  to  obey  the  ordinance,  no  more  was  done  than  to 
prescribe  an  oath  to  obey  the  Constitution.  It  is,  in  fact,  but  a  particu 
lar  oath  of  allegiance,  and  in  every  respect  similar  to  that  which  is  pre 
scribed  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  to  be  administered 
to  all  the  officers  of  the  State  and  Federal  Governments ;  and  is  no 
more  deserving  the  harsh  and  bitter  epithets  which  have  been  heaped 


270  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.      [1832-33. 

npon  it  than  that,  or  any  similar  oath.  It  ought  to  be  borne  in  mind, 
that,  according  to  the  opinion  which  prevails  in  Carolina,  the  right  of 
resistance  to  the  unconstitutional  laws  of  Congress  belongs  to  the  state, 
and  not  to  her  individual  citizens ;  and  that,  though  the  latter  may,  in 
a  mere  question  of  meum  and  tuum,  resist,  through  the  courts,  an  uncon 
stitutional  encroachment  upon  their  rights,  yet  the  final  stand  against 
usurpation  rests  not  with  them,  but  with  the  state  of  which  they  are 
members  ;  and  such  act  of  resistance  by  a  state  binds  the  conscience  and 
allegiance  of  the  citizen.  But  there  appears  to  be  a  general  misappre 
hension  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the  state  has  acted  under  this  part  of 
the  ordinance.  Instead  of  sweeping  every  officer  by  a  general  pro 
scription  of  the  minority,  as  has  been  represented  in  debate,  as  far  as 
my  knowledge  extends,  not  a  single  individual  has  been  removed.  The 
state  has,  in  fact,  acted  with  the  greatest  tenderness,  all  circumstances 
considered,  towards  citizens  who  differed  from  the  majority ;  and,  in 
that  spirit,  has  directed  the  oath  to  be  administered  only  in  cases  of 
some  official  act  directed  to  be  performed  in  which  obedience  to  the 
ordinance  is  involved. 

It  has  been  farther  objected  that  the  state  has  acted  precipitatelv. 
What !  precipitately  !  after  making  a  strenuous  resistance  for  twelve 
years — by  discussion  here  and  in  the  other  house  of  Congress — by 
essays  in  all  forms — by  resolutions,  remonstrances,  and  protests  on  the 
part  of  her  Legislature — and,  finally,  by  attempting  an  appeal  to  the 
judicial  power  of  the  United  States?  I  say  attempting,  for  they  have 
been  prevented  from  bringing  the  question  fairly  before  the  court,  and 
that  by  an  act  of  that  very  majority  in  Congress  who  now  upbraid 
them  for  not  making  that  appeal ;  of  that  majority  who,  on  a  motion  of 
one  of  the  members  in  the  other  house  from  South  Carolina,  refused  to 
give  to  the  act  of  1828  its  true  title — that  it  was  a  protective,  and  not  a 
revenue  act.  The  state  has  never,  it  is  true,  relied  upon  that  tribunal, 
the  Supreme  Court,  to  vindicate  its  reserved  rights  ;  yet  they  have 
always  considered  it  as  an  auxiliary  means  of  defence,  of  which  they 
would  gladly  have  availed  themselves  to  test  the  constitutionality  of 
protection,  had  they  not  been  deprived  of  the  means  of  doing  so  by  the 
act  of  the  majority. 

Notwithstanding  this  long  delay  of  more  than  ten  years,  under  this 
continued  encroachment  of  the  government,  we  now  hear  it  on  all  sides, 
by  friends  and  foes,  gravely  pronounced  that  the  state  has  acted  pre 
cipitately — that  her  conduct  has  been  rash  !  That  such  should  be  the 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  271 

language  of  an  interested  majority,  who,  by  means  of  this  unconstitu 
tional  and  oppressive  system,  are  annually  extorting  millions  from  the 
South  to  be  bestowed  upon  other  sections,  is  not  at  all  surprising. 
Whatever  impedes  the  course  of  avarice  and  ambition  will  ever  be  de 
nounced  as  rash  and  precipitate ;  and  had  South  Carolina  delayed  her 
resistance  fifty  instead  of  twelve  years,  she  would  have  heard  from  the 
eame  quarter  the  same  language  ;  but  it  is  really  surprising  that  those 
who  are  suffering  in  common  with  herself,  and  who  have  complained 
equally  loud  of  their  grievances,  who  have  pronounced  the  very  acts 
which  she  has  asserted  within  her  limits  to  be  oppressive,  unconstitu 
tional,  and  ruinous,  after  so  long  a  struggle — a  struggle  longer  than 
that  which  preceded  the  separation  of  these  states  from  the  mother- 
country — longer  than  the  period  of  the  Trojan  war — should  now  com 
plain  of  precipitancy  !  No,  it  is  not  Carolina  wrhich  has  acted  precipi 
tately  ;  but  her  sister  states,  who  have  suffered  in  common  with  her, 
have  acted  tardily.  Had  they  acted  as  she  has  done,  had  they 
performed  their  duty  with  equal  energy  and  promptness,  our  situation 
this  day  would  be  very  different  from  what  we  now  find  it.  Delays 
are  said  to  be  dangerous ;  and  never  was  the  maxim  more  true  than  in 
the  present  case,  a  case  of  monopoly.  It  is  the  very  nature  of  mo 
nopolies  to  grow.  If  we  take  from  one  side  a  large  portion  of  the 
proceeds  of  its  labor  and  give  it  to  the  other,  the  side  from  which  we 
take  must  constantly  decay,  and  that  to  which  we  give  must  prosper 
and  increase.  Such  is  the  action  of  the  protective  system.  It  exacts 
from  the  South  a  large  portion  of  the  proceeds  of  its  industry,  which  it 
bestows  upon  the  other  sections,  in  the  shape  of  bounties  to  manufac 
tures,  and  appropriations  in  a  thousand  forms ;  pensions,  improvement 
of  rivers  and  harbors,  roads  and  canals,  and  in  every  shape  that  wit  or 
ingenuity  can  devise.  Can  we,  then,  be  surprised  that  the  principle  of 
monopoly  grows,  when  it  is  so  amply  remunerated  at  the  expense  of 
those  who  support  it  ?  And  this  is  the  real  reason  of  the  fact  which 
we  witness,  that  all  acts  for  protection  pass  with  small  minorities,  but 
soon  come  to  be  sustained  by  great  and  overwhelming  majorities. 
Those  who  seek  the  monopoly  endeavor  to  obtain  it  in  the  most  exclu 
sive  shape ;  and  they  take  care,  accordingly,  to  associate  only  a  suffi 
cient  number  of  interests  barely  to  pass  it  through  the  two  houses  of 
Congress,  on  the  plain  principle  that  the  greater  the  number  from 
whom  the  monopoly  takes,  and  the  fewer  on  whom  it  bestows,  the 
greater  is  the  advantage  to  the  monopolists.  Acting  in  this  spirit,  we 


272  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33, 

have  often  seen  with  what  exact  precision  they  count :  adding  wool  to 
woollens,  associating  lead  and  iron,  feeling  their  way,  until  a  bare  ma 
jority  is  obtained,  when  the  bill  passes,  connecting  just  as  many  in 
terests  as  are  sufficient  to  ensure  its  success,  and  no  more.  In  a  short 
time,  however,  we  have  invariably  found  that  this  lean  becomes  a  de 
cided  majority,  under  the  certain  operation  which  compels  individuals 
to  desert  the  pursuits  which  the  monopoly  has  rendered  unprofitable,  that 
they  may  participate  in  those  pursuits  which  it  has  rendered  profitable. 
It  is  against  this  dangerous  and  growing  disease  which  South  Carolina 
has  acted :  a  disease  whose  cancerous  action  would  soon  have  spread 
to  every  part  of  the  system,  if  not  arrested. 

There  is  another  powerful  reason  why  the  action  of  the  state  could 
not  have  been  safely  delayed.  The  public  debt,  as  I  have  already 
stated,  for  all  practical  purposes,  has  already  been  paid ;  and,  under 
the  existing  duties,  a  large  annual  surplus  of  many  millions  must  come 
into  the  treasury.  It  is  impossible  to  look  at  this  state  of  things  with 
out  seeing  the  most  mischievous  consequences ;  and,  among  others,  if 
not  speedily  corrected,  it  would  interpose  powerful  and  almost  insuper 
able  obstacles  to  throwing  off  the  burden  under  which  the  South  has 
been  so  long  laboring.  The  disposition  of  the  surplus  would  become  a 
subject  of  violent  and  corrupt  struggle,  and  could  not  fail  to  rear  up 
new  and  powerful  interests  in  support  of  the  existing  system,  not  only 
in  those  sections  which  have  been  heretofore  benefited  by  it,  but  even 
in  the  South  itself.  I  cannot  but  trace  to  the  anticipation  of  this  state 
of  the  treasury  the  sudden  and  extraordinary  movements  which  took 
place  at  the  last  session  in  the  Virginia  Legislature,  in  which  the  whole 
South  is  vitally  interested.*  It  is  impossible  for  any  rational  man  to 
believe  that  that  state  could  seriously  have  thought  of  effecting  the 
scheme  to  which  I  allude  by  her  own  resources,  without  powerful  aid 
from  the  General  Government. 

It  is  next  objected,  that  the  enforcing  acts  have  legislated  the  United 
States  out  of  South  Carolina.  I  have  already  replied  to  this  objection 
on  another  occasion,  and  will  now  but  repeat  what  I  then  said :  that 
they  have  been  legislated  out  only  to  the  extent  that  they  had  no  right 
to  enter.  The  Constitution  has  admitted  the  jurisdiction  of  the  United 
States  within  the  limits  of  the  several  states  only  so  far  as  the  dele 
gated  powers  authorize  ;  beyond  that  they  are  intruders,  and  may 

*  Having  for  their  object  the  emancipation  and  colonization  of  slaves. 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  273 

rightfully  be  expelled ;  and  that  they  have  been  efficiently  expelled  by 
the  legislation  of  the  state  through  her  civil  process,  as  has  been  ac 
knowledged  on  all  sides  in  the  debate,  is  only  a  confirmation  of  the 
truth  of  the  doctrine  for  which  the  majority  in  Carolina  have  con 
tended. 

The  very  point  at  issue  between  the  two  parties  there  is,  whether 
nullification  is  a  peaceable  and  an  efficient  remedy  against  an  unconsti 
tutional  act  of  the  General  Government,  and  which  may  be  asserted 
as  such  through  the  state  tribunals.  Both  parties  agree  that  the  acts 
against  which  it  is  directed  are  unconstitutional  and  oppressive.  The 
controversy  is  only  as  to  the  means  by  which  our  citizens  may  be  pro 
tected  against  the  acknowledged  encroachments  on  their  rights.  This 
being  the  point  at  issue  beUreen  the  parties,  a/nd  the  very  object  of  the 
majority  being  an  efficient  protection  of  the  citizens  through  the  state 
tribunals,  the  measures  adopted  to  enforce  the  ordinance  of  course  re 
ceived  the  most  decisive  character.  "We  were  not  children,  to  act  by 
halves.  Yet  for  acting  thus  efficiently  the  state  is  denounced,  and  this 
bill  reported,  to  overrule,  by  military  force,  the  civil  tribunals  and  civil 
process  of  the  state !  Sir,  I  consider  this  bill,  and  the  arguments 
which  have  been  urged  on  this  floor  in  its  support,  as  the  most  trium 
phant  acknowledgment  that  nullification  is  peaceful  and  efficient,  and 
so  deeply  intrenched  in  the  principles  of  our  system,  that  it  cannot  be 
assailed  but  by  prostrating  the  Constitution,  and  substituting  the  su 
premacy  of  military  force  in  lieu  of  the  supremacy  of  the  laws.  In 
fact,  the  advocates  of  this  bill  refute  their  own  argument.  They  tell 
us  that  the  ordinance  is  unconstitutional ;  that  they  infract  the  Consti 
tution  of  South  Carolina,  although,  to  me,  the  objection  appears  absurd, 
as  it  was  adopted  by  the  very  authority  which  adopted  the  Constitu 
tion  itself.  They  also  tell  us  that  the  Supreme  Court  is  the  appointed 
arbiter  of  all  controversies  between  a  state  and  the  General  Govern 
ment.  Why,  then,  do  they  not  leave  this  controversy  to  that  tribunal  ? 
Why  do  they  not  confide  to  them  the  abrogation  of  the  ordinance,  and 
Hie  laws  made  in  pursuance  of  it,  and  the  assertion  of  that  supremacy 
which  they  claim  for  the  laws  of  Congress  ?  The  state  stands  pledged 
to  resist  no  process  of  the  court.  Why,  then,  confer  on  the  President 
ike  extensive  and  unlimited  powers  provided  in  this  bill?  Why 
authorize  him  to  use  military  force  to  arrest  the  civil  process  of  the 
siate  ?  But  one  answer  can  be  given  :  That,  in  a  contest  between  the 
iiaie  and  the  General  Government,  if  the  resistance  be  limited  on  both 


274  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

eides  to  the  civil  process,  the  state,  by  its  inherent  sovereignty,  stand 
ing  upon  its  reserved  powers,  will  prove  too  powerful  in  such  a  contro 
versy,  and  must  triumph  over  the  Federal  Government,  sustained  by 
its  delegated  and  limited  authority ;  and  in  this  answer  we  have  an 
acknowledgment  of  the  truth  of  those  great  principles  for  which  the 
etate  has  so  firmly  and  nobly  contended. 

Having  made  these  remarks,  the  great  question  is  now  presented, 
Has  Congress  the  right  to  pass  this  bill  ?  which  I  will  next  proceed  to 
consider.  The  decision  of  this  question  involves  the  inquiry  into  the 
provisions  of  the  bill.  What  are  they  ?  It  puts  at  the  disposal  of  the 
President  the  army  and  navy,  and  the  entire  militia  of  the  country  ;  it 
enables  him,  at  his  pleasure,  to  subject  every  man  in  the  United  States, 
not  exempt  from  militia  duty,  to  martial  law :  to  call  him  from  his 
ordinary  occupation  to  the  field,  and  under  the  penalty  of  fine  and  im 
prisonment,  inflicted  by  a  court-martial,  to  compel  him  to  imbrue  his 
hand  in  his  brothers'  blood.  There  is  no  limitation  on  the  power  of  the 
sword,  and  that  over  the  purse  is  equally  without  restraint;  for,  among 
the  extraordinary  features  of  the  bill,  it  contains  no  appropriation, 
which,  under  existing  circumstances,  is  tantamount  to  an  unlimited  ap 
propriation.  The  President  may,  under  its  authority,  incur  any  expendi 
ture,  and  pledge  the  national  faith  to  meet  it.  He  may  create  a  new 
national  debt,  at  the  very  moment  of  the  termination  of  the  former — a 
debt  of  millions,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  proceeds  of  the  labor  of  that 
section  of  the  country  whose  dearest  constitutional  rights  this  bill  pros 
trates!  Thus  exhibiting  the  extraordinary  spectacle,  that  the  very 
section  of  the  country  which  is  urging  this  measure,  and  carrying  the 
sword  of  devastation  against  us,  are,  at  the  same  time,  incurring  a  new 
debt,  to  be  paid  by  those  whose  rights  are  violated ;  while  those  who 
violate  them  are  to  receive  the  benefits,  in  the  shape  of  bounties  and 
expenditures. 

And  for  what  purpose  is  the  unlimited  control  of  the  purse  and  of 
the  sword  thus  placed  at  the  disposition  of  the  executive  ?  To  make 
•war  against  one  of  the  free  and  sovereign  members  of  this  confedera 
tion,  which  the  bill  proposes  to  deal  with,  not  as  a  state,  but  as  a  col 
lection  of  banditti  or  outlaws.  Thus  exhibiting  the  impious  spectacle 
of  this  government,  the  creature  of  the  states,  making  war  against  the 
power  to  which  it  owes  its  existence. 

The  bill  violates  the  Constitution,  plainly  and  palpably,  in  many  of 
its  provisions,  by  authorizing  the  President,  at  his  pleasure,  to  place  the 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  275 

different  ports  of  this  Union  on  an  unequal  footing,  contrary  to  that  pro 
vision  of  the  Constitution  which  declares  that  no  preference  shall  be 
given  to  one  port  over  another.  It  also  violates  the  Constitution  by 
authorizing  him,  at  his  discretion,  to  impose  cash  duties  on  one  port, 
while  credit  is  allowed  in  others  ;  by  enabling  the  President  to  regulate 
commerce,  a  power  vested  in  Congress  alone ;  and  by  drawing  within, 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  United  States  courts  powers  never  intended  to 
be  conferred  on  them.  As  great  as  these  objections  are,  they  become 
insignificant  in  the  provisions  of  a  bill  which,  by  a  single  blow — by 
treating  the  states  as  a  mere  lawless  mass  of  individuals — prostrates 
all  the  barriers  of  the  Constitution.  I  will  pass  over  the  minor  con 
siderations,  and  proceed  directly  to  the  great  point.  This  bill  proceeds 
on  the  ground  that  the  entire  sovereignty  of  this  country  belongs  to  the 
American  people,  as  forming  one  great  community,  and  regards  the 
states  as  mere  fractions  or  counties,  and  not  as  an  integral  part  of  the 
Union :  having  no  more  right  to  resist  the  encroachments  of  a  govern 
ment  than  a  county  has  to  resist  the  authority  of  a  state ;  and  treat 
ing  such  resistance  as  the  lawless  acts  of  so  many  individuals,  without 
possessing  sovereignty  or  political  rights.  It  has  been  said  that  the  bill 
declares  war  against  South  Carolina.  No.  It  decrees  a  massacre  of 
her  citizens !  War  has  something  ennobling  about  it,  and,  with  all  its 
horrors,  brings  into  action  the  highest  qualities,  intellectual  and  moral. 
It  was,  perhaps,  in  the  order  of  Providence  that  it  should  be  permitted 
for  that  very  purpose.  But  this  bill  declares  no  war,  except,  indeed,  it 
be  that  which  savages  wage — a  war,  not  against  the  community,  but 
the  citizens  of  whom  that  community  is  composed.  But  I  regard  it  as 
worse  than  savage  warfare — as  an  attempt  to  take  away  life  under  the 
color  of  law,  without  the  trial  by  jury,  or  any  other  safeguard  which 
the  Constitution  has  thrown  around  the  life  of  the  citizen !  It  authorizes 
the  President,  or  even  his  deputies,  when  they  may  suppose  the  law  to 
be  violated,  without  the  intervention  of  a  court  or  jury,  to  kill  without 
mercy  or  discrimination. 

It  has  been  said  by  the  senator  from  Tennessee  (Mr.  Grundy)  to  be 
a  measure  of  peace !  Yes,  such  peace  as  the  wolf  gives  to  the  lamb— 
the  kite  to  the  dove.  Such  peace  as  Russia  gives  to  Poland,  or  death 
to  its  victim  !  A  peace,  by  extinguishing  the  political  existence  of  the 
etate,  by  awing  her  into  an  abandonment  of  the  exercise  of  every  power 
which  constitutes  her  a  sovereign  community.  It  is  to  South  Carolina 
a  question  of  self-preservation  ;  and  I  proclaim  it,  that  should  this  bill 


276  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALIIOUN.  [1832—33. 

pass,  and  an  attempt  be  made  to  enforce  it,  it  will  be  resisted  at  every 
hazard — even  that  of  death  itself.  Death  is  not  the  greatest  calamity : 
there  are  others  still  more  terrible  to  the  free  and  brave,  and  among 
them  may  be  placed  the  loss  of  liberty  and  honor.  There  are  thousands 
of  her  brave  sons  who,  if  need  be,  are  prepared  cheerfully  to  lay  down 
their  lives  in  defence  of  the  state,  and  the  great  principles  of  constitu 
tional  liberty  for  which  she  is  contending.  God  forbid  that  this  should 
become  necessary  !  It  never  can  be,  unless  this  government  is  resolved 
to  bring  the  question  to  extremity,  when  her  gallant  sons  will  stand 
prepared  to  perform  the  last  duty — to  die  nobly. 

I  go  on  the  ground  that  this  Constitution  was  made  by  the  states ; 
that  it  is  a  federal  union  of  the  states,  in  which  the  several  states  still 
retain  their  sovereignty.  If  these  views  be  correct,  I  have  not  charac 
terized  the  bill  too  strongly,  which  presents  the  question  whether  they 
be  or  not.  I  will  not  enter  into  the  discussion  of  that  question  now. 
I  will  rest  it,  for  the  present,  on  what  I  have  said  on  the  introduction 
of  the  resolutions  now  on  the  table,  under  a  hope  that  another  oppor 
tunity  will  be  afforded  for  more  ample  discussion.  I  will,  for  the 
present,  confine  my  remarks  to  the  objections  which  have  been  raised 
to  the  views  which  I  presented  when  I  introduced  them.  The  authority 
of  Luther  Martin  has  been  adduced  by  the  senator  from  Delaware,  to 
prove  that  the  citizens  of  a  state,  acting  under  the  authority  of  a  state, 
are  liable  to  be  punished  as  traitors  by  this  government.  As  eminent 
as  Mr.  Martin  was  as  a  lawyer,  and  as  high  as  his  authority  may  be 
considered  on  a  legal  point,  I  cannot  accept  it  in  determining  the  point 
at  issue.  The  attitude  which  he  occupied,  if  taken  into  view,  would 
lessen,  if  not  destroy,  the  weight  of  his  authority.  He  had  been  vio 
lently  opposed  in  Convention  to  the  Constitution,  and  the  very  letter 
from  which  the  senator  has  quoted  was  intended  to  dissuade  Maryland 
from  its  adoption.  With  this  view,  it  was  to  be  expected  that  every 
consideration  calculated  to  effect  that  object  should  be  urged;  that  real 
objections  should  be  exaggerated ;  and  that  those  having  no  foundation, 
except  mere  plausible  deductions,  should  be  presented.  It  is  to  this 
spirit  that  I  attribute  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Martin  in  reference  to  the  point 
under  consideration.  But  if  his  authority  be  good  on  one  point,  it  must 
be  admitted  to  be  equally  so  on  another.  If  his  opinion  be  sufficient 
to  prove  that  a  citizen  of  the  state  may  be  punished  as  a  traitor  when 
acting  under  allegiance  to  the  state,  it  is  also  sufficient  to  show  that  no 
authority  was  intended  to  be  given  in  the  Constitution  for  the  protection 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  277 

of  manufactures  by  the  General  Government,  and  that  the  provision  in 
the  Constitution  permitting  a  state  to  lay  an  impost  duty,  with  the 
consent  of  Congress,  was  intended  to  reserve  the  right  of  protection  to 
the  states  themselves,  and  that  each  state  should  protect  its  own  in 
dustry.  Assuming  his  opinion  to  be  of  equal  authority  on  both  points, 
how  embarrassing  would  be  the  attitude  in  which  it  would  place  the 
senator  from  Delaware,  and  those  with  whom  he  is  acting — that  of 
using  the  sword  and  the  bayonet  to  enforce  the  execution  of  an  un 
constitutional  act  of  Congress.  I  must  express  my  surprise  that  the 
slightest  authority  in  favor  of  power  should  be  received  as  the  most 
conclusive  evidence,  while  that  which  is,  at  least,  equally  strong  in 
favor  of  right  and  liberty,  is  wholly  overlooked  or  rejected. 

Notwithstanding  all  that  has  been  said,  I  must  say  that  neither  the 
senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton),  nor  any  other  who  has  spoken  on 
the  same  side,  has  directly  and  fairly  met  the  great  questions  at  issue  : 
Is  this  a  federal  union  ?  a  union  of  states,  as  distinct  from  that  of 
individuals  ?  Is  the  sovereignty  in  the  several  states,  or  in  the  American 
people  in  the  aggregate  ?  The  very  language  which  we  are  compelled 
to  use,  when  speaking  of  our  political  institutions,  affords  proof  conclu 
sive  as  to  its  real  character.  The  terms  union,  federal,  united,  all  imply 
a  combination  of  sovereignties,  a  confederation  of  states.  They  are 
never  applied  to  an  association  of  individuals.  Who  ever  heard  of  the 
United  State  of  New  York,  of  Massachusetts,  or  of  Virginia?  Who 
ever  heard  the  term  federal  or  union  applied  to  the  aggregation  of 
individuals  into  one  community  ?  Nor  is  the  other  pointless  clear — that 
the  sovereignty  is  in  the  several  states,  and  that  our  system  is  a  union 
of  twenty-four  sovereign  powers,  under  a  constitutional  compact,  and 
not  of  a  divided  sovereignty  between  the  states  severally  and  the  United 
States.  In  spite  of  all  that  has  been  said,  I  maintain  that  sovereignty 
is  in  its  nature  indivisible.  It  is  the  supreme  power  in  a  state,  and  we 
might  just  as  well  speak  of  half  a  square,  or  half  of  a  triangle,  as  of  half 
a  sovereignty.  It  is  a  gross  error  to  confound  the  exercise  of  sovereign 
powers  with  sovereignty  itself,  or  the  delegation  of  such  powers  with  a 
surrender  of  them.  A  sovereign  may  delegate  his  powers  to  be  exer 
cised  by  as  many  agents  as  he  may  think  proper,  under  such  conditions 
and  with  such  limitations  as  hi;  may  impose;  nut  to  surrender  any  por 
tion  of  his  sovereignty  to  another  is  to  annihilate  the  whole.  The 
senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton)  calls  thi^  metaphysical  reasoning, 
which,  he  says,  he  cannot  comprehend.  If  by  metaphysics  he  means 


278  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

that  scholastic  refinement  which  makes  distinctions  without  difference, 
no  one  can  hold  it  in  more  utter  contempt  than  I  do ;  but  if,  on  the 
contrary,  he  means  the  power  of  analysis  and  combination — that  power 
which  reduces  the  most  complex  idea  into  its  elements,  which  traces 
causes  to  their  first  principle,  and,  by  the  power  of  generalization  and 
combination,  unites  the  whole  in  one  harmonious  system — then,  so  far 
from  deserving  contempt,  it  is  the  highest  attribute  of  the  human  mind. 
It  is  the  power  which  raises  man  above  the  brute — which  distinguishes 
his  faculties  from  mere  sagacity,  which  he  holds  in  common  with  inferior 
animals.  It  is  this  power  which  has  raised  the  astronomer  from  being 
a  mere  gazer  at  the  stars  to  the  high  intellectual  eminence  of  a  Newton 
or  Laplace,  and  astronomy  itself  from  a  mere  observation  of  insulated 
facts  into  that  noble  science  which  displays  to  our  admiration  the  system 
of  the  universe.  And  shall  this  high  power  of  the  mind,  which  has 
effected  such  wonders  when  directed  to  the  laws  which  control  the 
material  world,  be  forever  prohibited,  under  a  senseless  cry  of  metaphys 
ics,  from  being  applied  to  the  high  purpose  of  political  science  and 
legislation  ?  I  hold  them  to  be  subject  to  laws  as  fixed  ac  matter  itself, 
and  to  be  as  fit  a  subject  for  the  applicaUon  of  the  highest  intellectual 
power.  Denunciation  may,  indeed,  fall  upon  the  philosophical  inquirer 
into  these  first  principles,  as  it  did  upon  Galileo  and  Bacon  when  they 
first  unfolded  the  great  discoveries  which  have  immortalized  their 
names ;  but  the  time  will  come  when  truth  will  prevail  in  spite  of  pre- 
•udice  and  denunciation,  and  when  politics  and  legislation  will  be 
considered  as  much  a  science  as  astronomy  and  chemistry. 

In  connection  wi:h  this  part  of  (he  subject,  I  understood  the  senator 
from  Virginia  (Mr.  Hive-)  to  ay  that  sovereignty  was  divided,  and  that 
a  portion  remained  with  the  .slates  severally,  and  that  the  residue  was 
vested  in  the  Union.  By  Union,  I  suppose  the  senator  meant  the 
United  States.  If  such  be  his  meaning — if  he  intended  to  affirm  that 
the  sovereignty  was  in  the  twenty-four  states,  in  whatever  light  he  may 
view  them,  our  opinions  will  not  disagree;  but,  according  to  my  concep 
tion,  the  whole  sovereignty  is  in  the  several  states,  while  the  exercise 
of  sovereign  powers  is  divided — a  part  being  exercised  under  compact, 
through  this  General  Government,  and  the  residue  through  the  separate 
state  governments.  But  if  the  senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives) 
in  .,:u  to  as.-:cri  that  the  twenty  four  states  form  but  one  community, 
with  a  single  sovereign  power  as  to  the  objects  of  the  Union,  it  will  be 
but  the  revival  of  the  old  question,  of  whether  the  Union  is  a  union 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL,  279 

between  states,  as  distinct  communities,  or  a  mere  aggregate  of  the 
American  people,  as  a  mass  of  individuals ;  and  in  this  light  his  opinions 
would  lead  directly  to  consolidation. 

But  to  return  to  the  bill.  It  is  said  that  the  bill  ought  to  pass, 
because  the  law  must  be  enforced.  The  law  must  be  enforced.  The 
imperial  edict  must  be  executed.  It  is  under  such  sophistry,  couched  in 
general  terms,  without  looking  to  the  limitations  which  must  ever  exist 
in  the  practical  exercise  of  power,  that  the  most  cruel  and  despotic  acts 
ever  have  been  covered.  It  was  such  sophistry  as  this  that  cast  Daniel 
into  the  lion's  den,  and  the  tliree  Innocents  into  the  fiery  furnace.  Under 
the  same  sophistry  the  bloody  edicts  of  Nero  and  Caligula  were 
executed.  The  law  must  be  enforced.  Yes,  the  act  imposing  the  "  tea- 
tax  must  be  executed."  This  was  the  very  argument  which  impelled 
Lord  North  and  his  administration  in  that  mad  career  which  forever 
separated  us  from  the  British  crown.  Under  a  similar  sophistry,  "  that 
religion  must  be  protected,"  how  many  massacres  have  been  perpetrated  ? 
and  how  many  martyrs  have  been  tied  to  the  stake  ?  What !  acting  on 
this  vague  abstraction,  are  you  prepared  to  enforce  a  law  without  con 
sidering  whether  it  be  just  or  unjust,  constitutional  or  unconstitutional? 
Will  you  collect  money  when  it  is  acknowledged  that  it  is  not  wanted  f 
He  who  earns  the  money,  who  digs  it  from  the  earth  with  the  sweat  of 
his  brow,  has  a  just  title  to  it  against  the  universe.  No  one  has  a  right 
to  touch  it  without  his  consent  except  his  government,  and  it  only  to  the 
extent  of  its  legitimate  wants  ;  to  take  more  is  robbery,  and  you  propose 
by  this  bill  to  enforce  robbery  by  murder.  Yes :  to  this  result  you 
must  come,  by  this  miserable  sophistry,  this  vague  abstraction  of 
enforcing  the  law,  without  a  regard  to  the  fact  whether  the  la\v 
be  just  or  unjust,  constitutional  or  unconstitutional. 

In  the  same  spirit,  we  are  told  that  the  Union  must  be  preserved, 
without  regard  to  the  means.  And  how  is  it  proposed  to  preserve  the 
Union  ?  By  force !  Does  any  man  in  his  senses  believe  that  this 
beautiful  structure — this  harmonious  aggregate  of  states,  produced  by 
the  joint  consent  of  all— can  be  preserved  by  force  ?  Its  very  introduc 
tion  will  be  certain  destruction  of  this  Federal  Union.  No,  no.  You 
cannot  keep  the  states  united  in  their  constitutional  and  federal  bonds 
by  force.  Force  may,  indeed,  hold  the  parts  together,  but  such  union 
would  be  the  bond  between  master  and  slave :  a  union  of  exaction  on 
one  side,  and  of  unqualified  obedience  on  the  other.  That  obedience 
which,  we  are  told  by  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Wilkins),  ia 


280  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33 

the  Union  !  Yes,  exaction  on  the  side  of  the  master ;  for  this  very  bill 
is  intended  to  collect  what  can  be  no  longer  called  taxes — the  voluntary 
contribution  of  a  free  people — but  tribute — tribute  to  be  collected  under 
the  mouths  of  the  cannon  !  Your  custom-house  is  already  transferred 
to  a  garrison,  and  that  garrison  -with  its  batteries  turned,  not  against  the 
enemy  of  your  country,  but  on  subjects  (I  will  not  say  citizens),  on 
whom  you  propose  to  levy  contributions.  Has  reason  Sed  from  our 
borders  ?  Have  we  ceased  to  reflect  ?  It  is  madness  to  suppose  that 
the  Union  can  be  preserved  by  force.  I  tell  you  plainly,  that  the  bill, 
should  it  pass,  cannot  be  enforced.  It  will  prove  only  a  blot  upon  your 
statute-book,  a.  reproach  to  the  year,  and  a  disgrace  to  the  American 
Senate.  I  repeat  that  it  will  not  be  executed  :  it  will  rouse  the  dormant 
spirit  of  the  people,  and  open  their  eyes  to  the  approach  of  despotism, 
The  country  has  sunk  into  avarice  and  political  corruption,  from  which 
nothing  can  arouse  it  but  some  measure,  on  the  part  of  the  government, 
of  folly  and  madness,  such  as  that  now  urxler  consideration. 

Disguise  it  as  you  may,  the  controversy  is  one  between  power  and 
liberty ;  and  I  will  tell  the  gentlemen  who  are  opposed  to  me,  that,  as 
strong  as  may  be  the  love  of  power  on  their  side,  the  lore  of  liberty  is 
still  stronger  on  ours.  History  furnishes  many  instances  of  similar 
struggles  where  the  love  of  liberty  has  prevailed  against  power  under 
every  disadvantage,  and  among  them  few  more  striking  than  that  of  our 
own  Revolution  ;  where,  as  strong  as  was  the  parent  country,  and  feeble 
as  were  the  colonies,  yet,  under  the  impulse  of  liberty,  and  the  blessing 
of  God,  they  gloriously  triumphed  in  the  contest.  There  are,  indeed, 
many  and  striking  analogies  between  that  and  the  present  controversy : 
they  both  originated  substantially  in  the  same  cause,  with  this  differ 
ence,  that,  in  the  present  case,  the  power  of  taxation  is  converted  into 
that  of  regulating  industry  ;  in  that,  the  power  of  regulating  industry, 
by  the  regulation  of  commerce,  was  attempted  to  be  converted  into  the 
power  of  taxation.  Were  I  to  trace  the  analogy  farther,  we  should 
find  that  the  perversion  of  the  taxing  power,  in  one  case,  lias  given  pre 
cisely  the  same  control  to  the  Northern  section  over  the  industry  of  the 
Southern  section  of  the  Union,  which  the  power  to  regulate  commerce 
gave  to  Great  Britain  over  the  industry  of  the  colonies ;  and  that  the 
very  articles  in  which  the  colonies  were  permitted  to  have  a  free  trade, 
and  those  in  which  the  mother-country  had  a  monopoly,  are  almost 
identically  the  same  as  those  in  which  the  Southern  States  are  per 
mitted  to  have  a  free  trade  by  the  act  of  1832,  and  in  which  the  Nor- 


1832-33.]   SPEECH  AGAINST  THE  FORCE  BILL       281 

them  States  have,  by  the  same  act,  secured  a  monopoly  :  the  sniy  dif 
ference  is  in  the  means.  In  the  former,  the  colonies  were  permitted  to 
have  a  free  trade  with  all  countries  south  of  Cape  Finisterre,  a  cape  in 
the  northern  part  of  Spain  ;  while  north  of  that  the  trade  of  the  colonies 
was  prohibited,  except  through  the  mother-country,  by  means  of  her 
commercial  regulations.  If  we  compare  the  products  of  the  country 
north  and  south  of  Cape  Finisterre,  we  shall  find  them  almost  identical 
with  the  list  of  the  protected  and  unprotected  articles  contained  in  the 
act  of  last  year.  Nor  does  the  analogy  terminate  here.  The  very  argu 
ments  resorted  to  at  the  commencement  of  the  American  Revolution, 
and  the  measures  adopted,  and  the  motives  assigned  to  bring  on  that 
contest  (to  enforce  the  law),  are  almost  identically  the  same. 

But  to  return  from  this  digression  to  the  consideration  of  the  bilL 
Whatever  difference  of  opinion  may  exist  upon  other  points,  there  is 
one  on  which  I  should  suppose  there  can  be  none :  that  this  bill  rests  on 
principles  which,  if  carried  out,  will  ride  over  state  sovereignties,  and 
that  it  will  be  idle  for  any  of  its  advocates  hereafter  to  talk  of  state 
rights.  The  senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives)  says  that  he  is  the  ad 
vocate  of  state  rights ;  but  he  must  permit  me  to  tell  him  that,  although 
he  may  differ  in  premises  from  the  other  gentlemen  with  whom  he  acts 
on  this  occasion,  yet  in  supporting  this  bill  he  obliterates  every  vestige 
of  distinction  between  him  and  them,  saving  only  that,  professing  the 
principles  of  '98,  his  example  will  be  more  pernicious  than  that  of  the 
most  open  and  bitter  opponents  of  the  rights  of  the  states.  I  will  also 
add,  what  I  am  compelled  to  say,  that  I  must  consider  him  (Mr.  Rives) 
as  less  consistent  than  our  old  opponents,  whose  conclusions  were  fairly 
drawn  from  their  premises,  while  his  premises  ought  to  have  led  him  to 
opposite  conclusions.  The  gentleman  has  told  us  that  the  new-fangled 
doctrines,  as  he  chooses  to  call  them,  have  brought  state  rights  into  dis 
repute.  I  must  tell  him,  in  reply,  that  what  he  calls  new-fangled  are 
but  the  doctrines  of  '98 ;  and  that  it  is  he  (Mr.  Rives),  and  others  with 
him,  who,  professing  these  doctrines,  have  degraded  them  by  explaining 
away  their  meaning  and  efficacy.  He  (Mr.  R.)  has  disclaimed,  in  behalf 
of  Virginia,  the  authorship  of  nullification.  I  will  not  dispute  that  point. 
If  Virginia  chooses  to  throw  away  one  of  her  brightest  ornaments,  she 
must  not  hereafter  complain  that  it  has  become  the  property  of  another. 
But  while  I  have,  as  a  representative  of  Carolina,  no  right  to  complain 
of  the  disavowal  of  the  senator  from  Virginia,  I  must  believe  that  he 
(Mr.  R.)  has  done  his  native  state  great  injustice  by  declaring  on  this 


282  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1832-33. 

floor  that,  when  she  gravely  resolved,  in  '98,  that,  "  in  cases  of  deliberate 
and  dangerous  infractions  of  the  Constitution,  the  states,  as  parties  to 
the  compact,  have  the  right,  and  are  in  duty  bound,  to  interpose  to 
arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil,  and  to  maintain  within  their  respective 
limits  the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  appertaining  to  them,"  she 
meant  no  more  than  to  ordain  the  right  to  protest  and  to  remonstrate. 
To  suppose  that,  in  putting  forth  so  solemn  a  declaration,  which  she 
afterward  sustained  by  so  able  and  elaborate  an  argument,  she  meant 
no  more  than  to  assert  what  no  one  had  ever  denied,  would  be  to  sup 
pose  that  the  state  had  been  guilty  of  the  most  egregious  trifling  that 
ever  was  exhibited  on  so  solemn  an  occasion. 

In  reviewing  the  ground  over  which  I  have  passed,  it  will  be  apparent 
that  the  question  in  controversy  involves  that  most  deeply  important 
of  all  political  questions,  whether  ours  is  a  federal  or  a  consolidated 
government :  a  question,  on  the  decision  of  which  depend,  as  I  solemnly 
believe,  the  liberty  of  the  people,  their  happiness,  and  the  place  which 
we  are  destined  to  hold  in  the  moral  and  intellectual  scale  of  nations. 
Never  was  there  a  controversy  in  which  more  important  consequences 
were  involved  :  not  excepting  that  between  Persia  and  Greece,  decided 
by  the  battles  of  Marathon,  Platea,  and  Salamis;  which  gave  ascendency 
to  the  genius  of  Europe  over  that  of  Asia ;  and  which,  in  its  conse 
quences,  has  continued  to  affect  the  destiny  of  so  large  a  portion  of  the 
world  even  to  this  day.  There  are  often  close  analogies  between  events 
apparently  very  remote^  which  are  strikingly  illustrated  in  this  case. 
In  the  great  contest  between  Greece  and  Persia,  between  European  and 
Asiatic  policy  and  civilization,  the  very  question  between  the  federal 
and  consolidated  form  of  government  was  involved.  The  Asiatic  govern 
ments,  from  the  remotest  time,  with  some  exceptions  on  the  eastern 
shore  of  the  Mediterranean,  have  been  based  on  the  principle  of  consoli 
dation,  which  considers  the  whole  community  as  but  a  unit,  and  consoli 
dates  its  powers  in  a  central  point.  The  opposite  principle  has  pre 
vailed  in  Europe — Greece,  throughout  all  her  states,  was  based  on  a 
federal  system.  All  were  united  in  one  common,  but  loose  bond,  and 
the  governments  of  the  several  states  partook,  for  the  most  part,  of  a 
complex  organization,  which  distributed  political  power  among  different 
members  of  the  community.  The  same  principles  prevailed  in  ancient 
Italy ;  and,  if  we  turn  to  the  Teutonic  race,  our  great  ancestors — the 
race  which  occupies  the  first  place  in  power,  civilization,  and  science, 
and  which  possesses  the  largest  and  the  fairest  part  of  Europe — we 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  283 

shall  find  that  their  governments  were  based  on  the  federal  organiza 
tion,  as  has  been  clearly  illustrated  by  a  recent  and  able  writer  on  the 
British  Constitution  (Mr.  Palgrave),  from  whose  writings  I  introduce 
the  following  extract : 

"  In  this  manner  the  first  establishment  of  the  Teutonic  States  was 
effected.  They  were  assemblages  of  sept?,  clans,  and  tribes  ;  they  were 
confederated  hosts  and  armies,  led  on  by  princes,  magistrates,  and 
chieftains ;  each  of  whom  was  originally  independent,  and  each  of 
whom  lost  a  portion  of  his  pristine  independence  in  proportion  as  he 
and  his  compeers  became  united  under  the  supremacy  of  a  sovereign, 
who  was  superinduced  upon  the  state,  first  as  a  military  commander, 
and  afterward  as  a  king.  Yet,  notwithstanding  this  political  connection, 
each  member  of  the  state  continued  to  retain  a  considerable  portion  of 
the  rights  of  sovereignty.  Every  ancient  Teutonic  monarchy  must  be 
considered  as  a  federation :  it  is  not  a  unit,  of  which  the  smaller  bodies 
politic  therein  contained  are  the  fractions,  but  they  are  the  integers, 
and  the  state  is  the  multiple  which  results  from  them.  Dukedoms  and 
counties,  burghs  and  baronies,  towns  and  townships,  and  shires,  form 
the  kingdom  ;  all,  in  a  certain  degree,  strangers  to  each  other,  and  sep 
arate  in  jurisdiction,  though  all  obedient  to  the  supreme  executive  au 
thority.  This  general  description,  though  not  always  strictly  applicable 
in  terms,  is  always  so  substantially  and  in  effect ;  and  hence  it  becomes 
necessary  to  discard  the  language  which  has  been  very  generally  em 
ployed  in  treating  on  the  English  Constitution.  It  has  been  supposed 
that  the  kingdom  was  reduced  into  a  regular  and  gradual  subordination 
of  government,  and  that  the  various  legal  districts  of  which  it  is  com 
posed  arose  from  the  divisions  and  subdivisions  of  the  country.  But 
this  hypothesis,  which  tends  greatly  to  perplex  our  history,  cannot  be 
supported  by  fact ;  and  instead  of  viewing  the  Constitution  as  a  whole, 
and  then  proceeding  to  its  parts,  we  must  examine  it  synthetically,  and 
assume  that  the  supreme  authorities  of  the  state  were  created  by  the 
concentration  of  the  powers  originally  belonging  to  the  members  and 
corporations  of  which  it  is  composed."  [Here  Mr.  C.  gave  way  for  a 
motion  to  adjourn.] 

On  the  next  day  Mr.  Calhoun  said,  I  have  omitted  at  the  proper 
place,  in  the  course  of  my  observations  yesterday,  two  or  three  points, 
to  which  I  will  now  advert,  before  I  resume  the  discussion  where  I  left 
off.  I  have  stated  that  the  ordinance  and  acts  of  South  Carolina  were 
directed,  not  against  the  revenue,  but  against  the  system  of  protection. 


284  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

But  it  may  be  asked,  If  such  was  her  object,  how  happens  it  that  she 
has  declared  the  whole  system  void — revenue  as  well  as  protection, 
without  discrimination  ?  It  is  this  question  which  I  propose  to  answer. 
Her  justification  will  be  found  in  the  necessity  of  the  case ;  and  if  there 
be  any  blame,  it  cannot  attach  to  her.  The  two  are  so  blended,  through 
out  the  whole,  as  to  make  the  entire  revenue  system  subordinate  to  the 
protective,  so  as  to  constitute  a  complete  system  of  protection,  in  which 
it  is  impossible  to  discriminate  the  two  elements  of  which  it  is  com 
posed.  South  Carolina,  at  least,  could  not  make  the  discrimination,  and 
she  was  reduced  to  the  alternative  of  acquiescing  in  a  system  which 
she  believed  to  be  unconstitutional,  and  which  she  felt  to  be  oppressive 
and  ruinous,  or  to  consider  the  whole  as  one,  equally  contaminated 
through  all  its  parts,  by  the  unconstitutional ity  of  the  protective  por 
tion,  and,  as  such,  to  be  resisted  by  the  act  of  the  state.  I  maintain 
that  the  state  has  a  right  to  regard  it  in  the  latter  character,  and  that, 
if  a  loss  of  revenue  follow,  the  fault  is  not  hers,  but  of  this  government, 
which  has  improperly  blended  together,  in  a  manner  not  to  be  separated 
by  the  state,  two  systems  wholly  dissimilar.  If  the  sincerity  of  the  state 
be  doubted ;  if  it  be  supposed  that  her  action  is  against  revenue  as  well 
as  protection,  let  the  two  be  separated :  let  so  much  of  the  duties  as 
are  intended  for  revenue  be  put  in  one  bill,  and  the  residue  intended 
for  protection  be  put  in  another,  and  I  pledge  myself  that  the  ordinance 
and  the  acts  of  the  state  will  cease  as  to  the  former,  and  be  directed 
exclusively  against  the  latter. 

I  also  stated,  in  the  course  of  my  remarks  yesterday,  and  I  trust  I 
have  conclusively  shown,  that  the  act  of  1816,  with  the  exception  of  a 
single  item,  to  which  I  have  alluded,  was,  in  realitv,  a  revenue  measure, 
and  that  Carolina  and  the  other  states,  in  supporting  it,  have  not  incur 
red  the  slightest  responsibility  in  relation  to  the  system  of  protection 
which  has  since  grown  up,  and  which  now  so  deeply  distracts  the 
country.  Sir,  I  am  willing,  as  one  of  the  representatives  of  Carolina, 
and  I  believe  I  speak  the  sentiment  of  the  state,  to  take  that  act  as  the 
basis  of  a  permanent  adjustment  of  the  tariff,  simply  reducing  the  duties, 
in  an  average  proportion,  on  all  the  items  to  the  revenue  point.  I  make 
that  offer  now  to  the  advocates  of  the  protective  system ;  but  I  must, 
in  candor,  inform  them  that  such  an  adjustment  would  distribute  the 
revenue  between  the  protected  and  unprotected  articles  more  favorable 
to  the  state,  and  to  the  South,  and  less  so  to  the  manufacturing  interest, 
than  an  average  uniform  ad  valorem,  and,  accordingly,  more  so  than 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  285 

that  now  proposed  by  Carolina  through  her  convention.  After  such  an 
offer,  no  man  who  values  his  candor  will  dare  accuse  the  state,  or  those 
who  have  represented  her  here,  with  inconsistency  in  reference  to  the 
point  under  consideration. 

I  omitted,  also,  on  yesterday,  to  notice  a  remark  of  the  senator  from 
Virginia  (Mr.  Rives),  that  the  only  difficulty  in  adjusting  the  tariff  grew 
out  of  the  ordinance  and  the  acts  of  South  Carolina.  I  must  attribute 
an  assertion  so  inconsistent  with  the  facts  to  an  ignorance  of  the  occur 
rences  of  the  last  few  years  in  reference  to  this  subject,  occasioned  by 
the  absence  of  the  gentleman  from  the  United  States,  to  which  he 
himself  has  alluded  in  his  remarks.  If  the  senator  will  take  pains  to 
inform  himself,  he  will  find  that  this  protective  system  advanced  with 
a  continued  and  rapid  step,  in  spite  of  petitions,  remonstrances,  and 
protests,  of  not  only  Carolina,  but  also  of  Virginia  and  of  all  the 
Southern  States,  until  1828,  when  Carolina,  for  the  first  time,  changed 
the  character  of  her  resistance,  by  holding  up  her  reserved  rights  as 
the  shield  of  her  defence  against  farther  encroachment.  This  attitude 
alone,  unaided  by  a  single  state,  arrested  the  farther  progress  of  the 
system,  so  that  the  question  from  that  period  to  this,  on  the  part  of  the 
manufacturers,  has  been,  not  how  to  acquire  more,  but  to  retain  that 
which  they  have  acquired.  I  will  inform  the  gentleman  that,  if  this 
attitude  had  not  been  taken  on  the  part  of  the  state,  the  question  would 
not  now  be  how  duties  ought  to  be  repealed,  but  a  question,  as  to  the 
protected  articles,  between  prohibition  on  one  side  and  the  duties  estab 
lished  by  the  act  of  1828  on  the  other.  But  a  single  remark  will  be 
sufficient  in  reply  to  what  I  must  consider  the  invidious  remark  of  the 
senator  from  Virginia  (Mr.  Rives).  The  act  of  1832,  which  has  not  yet 
gone  into  operation,  and  which  was  passed  but  a  few  months  since,  was 
declared  by  the  supporters  of  the  system  to  be  a  permanent  adjustment, 
and  the  bill  proposed  by  the  Treasury  Department,  not  essentially  differ 
ent  from  the  act  itself,  was  in  like  manner  declared  to  be  intended  by 
the  administration  as  a  permanent  arrangement.  What  has  occurred 
since,  except  this  ordinance,  and  these  abused  acts  of  the  calumniated 
state,  to  produce  this  mighty  revolution  in  reference  to  this  odious  sys 
tem  ?  Unless  the  senator  from  Virginia  can  assign  some  other  cause, 
he  is  bound,  upon  every  principle  of  fairness,  to  retract  this  unjust 
aspersion  upon  the  acts  of  South  Carolina. 

The  senator  from  Delaware  (Mr.  Clayton),  as  well  as  others,  has 
relied  with  great  emphasis  on  the  fact  that  we  are  citizens  of  the 


286  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1832-33. 

United  States.  I  do  not  object  to  the  expression,  nor  shall  I  detract 
from  the  proud  and  elevated  feelings  with  which  it  is  associated ;  but  I 
trust  that  I  may  be  permitted  to  raise  the  inquiry,  In  what  manner  are 
we  citizens  of  the  United  States?  without  weakening  the  patriotic 
feeling  with  which,  I  trust,  it  will  ever  be  uttered.  If  by  citizen  of  the 
United  States  he  means  a  citizen  at  large,  one  whose  citizenship  extends 
to  the  entire  geographical  limits  of  the  country,  without  having  a  local 
citizenship  in  some  state  or  territory,  a  sort  of  citizen  of  the  world,  all 
I  have  to  say  is,  that  such  a  citizen  would  be  a  perfect  nondescript ; 
that  not  a  single  individual  of  this  description  can  be  found  in  the  entire 
mass  of  our  population.  Notwithstanding  all  the  pomp  and  display 
of  eloquence  on  the  occasion,  every  citizen  is  a  citizen  of  some  state  or 
territory,  and,  as  such,  under  an  express  provision  of  the  Constitution, 
is  entitled  to  all  privileges  and  immunities  of  citizens  in  the  several 
states ;  and  it  is  in  this,  and  in  no  other  sense,  that  we  are  citizens  of 
the  United  States.  The  senator  from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Dallas),  indeed, 
relies  upon  that  provision  in  the  Constitution  which  gives  Congress  the 
power  to  establish  a  uniform  rule  of  naturalization,  and  the  operation 
of  the  rule  actually  established  under  this  authority,  to  prove  that 
naturalized  citizens  are  citizens  at  large,  without  being  citizens  of  any 
of  the  states.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary  to  examine  the  law  of  Con 
gress  upon  this  subject,  or  to  reply  to  the  arguments  of  the  senator, 
though  I  cannot  doubt  that  he  (Mr.  D.)  has  taken  an  entirely  erroneous 
view  of  the  subject.  It  is  sufficient  that  the  power  of  Congress  extends 
simply  to  the  establishment  of  a  uniform  rule  bv  which  foreigners  may 
be  naturalized  in  the  several  states  or  territories,  without  infringing  in 
any  other  respect,  in  reference  to  naturalization,  the  rights  of  the  states 
as  they  existed  before  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution. 

Having  supplied  the  omissions  of  yesterday,  I  now  resume  the  sub 
ject  at  the  point  where  my  remarks  then  terminated.  The  Senate 
will  remember  that  I  stated,  at  their  close,  that  the  great  question  at 
issue  is,  whether  ours  is  a  federal  or  a  consolidated  system  of  govern 
ment  ;  a  system  in  which  the  parts,  to  use  the  emphatic  language  of 
Mr.  Palgrave,  are  the  integers,  and  the  whole  the  multiple,  or  in  which 
the  whole  is  a  unit  and  the  parts  the  fractions  ;  that  I  stated,  that  on 
the  decision  of  this  question,  I  believe,  depended  not  only  the  liberty 
and  prosperity  of  this  country,  but  the  place  which  we  are  destined  to 
hold  in  the  intellectual  and  moral  scale  of  nations.  I  stated,  also,  in 
my  remarks  on  this  point,  that  there  is  a  striking  analogy  between  this 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  287 

and  the  great  struggle  between  Persia  aud  Greece,  which  was  decided 
by  the  battles  of  Marathon,  Platea,  and  Salamis,  and  which  immortal 
ized  the  names  of  Miltiades  and  Themistocles.  I  illustrated  this  an 
alogy  by  showing  that  centralism  or  consolidation,  with  the  exception 
of  a  few  nations  along  the  eastern  border  of  the  Mediterranean,  has 
been  the  pervading  principle  in  the  Asiatic  governments,  while  the 
federal  system,  or,  what  is  the  same  in  principle,  that  system  which  or 
ganizes  a  community  in  reference  to  its  parts,  has  prevailed  in  Europe. 
Among  the  few  exceptions  in  the  Asiatic  nations,  the  government  of 
the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  in  its  early  period,  is  the  most  striking. 
Their  government,  at  first,  was  a  mere  confederation  without  any  cen 
tral  power,  till  a  military  chieftain,  with  the  title  of  king,  was  placed 
at  its  head,  without,  however,  merging  the  original  organization  of  the 
twelve  distinct  tribes.  This  was  the  commencement  of  that  central 
action  among  that  peculiar  people  which,  in  three  generations,  ter 
minated  in  a  permanent  division  of  their  tribes.  It  ie  impossible  even 
for  a  careless  reader  to  peruse  the  history  of  that  event  without  being 
forcibly  struck  with  the  analogy  in  the  causes  which  led  to  their  separa 
tion,  and  those  which  now  threaten  us  with  a  similar  calamity.  With 
the  establishment  of  the  central  power  in  the  king  commenced  a  sys 
tem  of  taxation,  which,  under  King  Solomon,  was  greatly  increased  to 
defray  the  expense  of  rearing  the  temple,  of  enlarging  and  embellish 
ing  Jerusalem,  the  seat  of  the  central  government,  and  the  other  pro 
fuse  expenditures  of  his  magnificent  reign.  Increased  taxation  was 
followed  by  its  natural  consequences — discontent  and  complaint ;  which 
before  his  death  began  to  excite  resistance.  On  the  succession  of  his 
son,  Rehoboam,  the  ten  tribes,  headed  by  Jeroboam,  demanded  a  re 
duction  of  the  taxes ;  the  temple  being  finished,  and  the  embellishment 
of  Jerusalem  completed,  and  the  money  which  had  been  raised  for  that 
purpose  being  no  longer  required,  or,  in  other  words,  the  debt  being 
paid,  they  demanded  a  reduction  of  the  duties — a  repeal  of  the  tariff. 
The  demand  was  taken  under  consideration,  and  after  consulting  the 
old  men,  the  counsellors  of  '98,  who  advised  a  reduction,  he  then 
took  the  opinion  of  the  younger  politicians,  who  had  since  grown  up, 
and  knew  not  the  doctrines  of  their  fathers ;  he  hearkened  unto  their 
counsel,  and  refused  to  make  the  reduction,  and  the  secession  of  the 
ten  tribes  under  Jeroboam  followed.  The  tribes  of  Judah  and  Ben 
jamin,  which  had  received  the  disbursements,  alone  remained  to  the 
house  of  David. 


288  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

But  to  return  to  the  point  immediately  under  consideration.  I  know 
that  it  is  not  only  the  opinion  of  a  large  majority  of  our  country,  but 
it  may  be  said  to  be  the  opinion  of  the  age,  that  the  very  beau  ideal 
of  a  perfect  government  is  the  government  of  a  majority,  acting  through 
a  representative  body,  without  check  or  limitation  in  its  power ;  yet,  if 
we  may  test  this  theory  by  experience  and  reason,  we  shall  find  that, 
so  far  from  being  perfect,  the  necessary  tendency  of  all  governments, 
based  upon  the  will  of  an  absolute  majority,  without  constitutional 
check  or  limitation  of  power,  is  to  faction,  corruption,  anarchy,  and 
despotism ;  and  this,  whether  the  will  of  the  majority  be  expressed 
directly  through  an  assembly  of  the  people  themselves,  or  by  their 
representatives.  I  know  that,  in  venturing  this  assertion,  I  utter  that 
which  is  unpopular  both  within  and  without  these  walls ;  but  where 
truth  and  liberty  are  concerned,  such  considerations  should  not  be  re 
garded.  I  will  place  the  decision  of  this  point  on  the  fact  that  no  gov 
ernment  of  the  kind,  among  the  many  attempts  which  have  been  made, 
has  ever  endured  for  a  single  generation,  but,  on  the  contrary,  has  in 
variably  experienced  the  fate  which  I  have  assigned  to  it.  Let  a 
single  instance  be  pointed  out,  and  I  will  surrender  my  opinion.  But, 
if  we  had  not  the  aid  of  experience  to  direct  our  judgment,  reason 
itself  would  be  a  certain  guide.  The  view  which  considers  the  com 
munity  as  a  unit,  and  all  its  parts  as  having  a  similar  interest,  is  radi 
cally  erroneous.  However  small  the  community  may  be,  and  however 
homogeneous  its  interests,  the  moment  that  government  is  put  into 
operation,  as  soon  as  it  begins  to  collect  taxes  and  to  make  appropria 
tions,  the  different  portions  of  the  community  must,  of  necessity,  bear 
different  and  opposing  relations  in  reference  to  the  action  of  the  gov 
ernment.  There  must  inevitably  spring  up  two  interests — a  direction 
and  a  stockholder  interest — an  interest  profiting  by  the  action  of  the 
government,  and  interested  in  increasing  its  powers  and  action ;  and 
another,  at  whose  expense  the  political  machine  is  kept  in  motion.  I 
know  how  difficult  it  is  to  communicate  distinct  ideas  on  such  a  sub 
ject,  through  the  medium  of  general  propositions,  without  particular 
illustration;  and  in  order  that  I  may  be  distinctly  understood,  though 
at  the  hazard  of  bejng  tedious,  I  will  illustrate  the  important  principle 
which  I  have  ventured  to  advance  by  examples. 

Let  us,  then,  suppose  a  small  community  of  five  persons,  separated 
from  the  rest  of  the  world ;  and,  to  make  the  example  strong,  let  us 
suppose  them  all  to  be  engaged  in  the  same  pursuit,  and  to  be  of  equal 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FOR€E    BILL.  289 

wealth.  Let  us  further  suppose  that  they  determine  to  govern  the 
community  by  the  will  «f  a  majority ;  and,  to  make  the  case  as  strong 
as  possible,  let  us  suppose  that  the  majority,  in  order  to  meet  the  ex 
penses  of  the  government,  lay  an  equal  tax,  say  of  $100,  on  each  indi 
vidual  of  this  little  community,  Tlieir  treasury  would  contain  five 
hundred  dollars.  Three  are  a  majority;  and  they,  by  supposition,  have 
contributed  three  hundred  as  their  portion,  and  the  other  two  (the 
minority),  two  hundred.  The  three  have  the  right  to  make  the  appro 
priations  as  they  may  think  proper.  The  question  is,  How  would  the 
principle  of  the  absolute  and  unchecked  majority  operate,  under  these 
circumstances,  in  this  little  community  ?  If  the  three  be  governed  by  a 
sense  of  justice — if  they  should  appropriate  the  money  to  the  objects 
for  which  it  was  raised,  the  common  and  equal  benefit  of  the  five,  then 
the  object  of  the  association  would  be  fairly  and  honestly  effected,  and 
each  would  have  a  common  interest  in  the  government  But,  should 
the  majority  pursue  an  opposite  course — should  they  appropriate  the 
money  iu  a  manner  to  benefit  their  own  particular  interest,  without  re 
gard  to  the  interest  of  the  two  (and  that  they  will  so  act,  unless  there 
be  some  efficient  check,  he  who  best  knows  human  nature  will  least 
doubt),  who  does  not  see  that  the  three  and  the  two  would  have 
directly  opposite  interests  in  reference  to  the  action  of  the  government  ? 
The  three  who  contribute  to  the  common  treasury  but  three  hundred 
dollars,  could,  in  fact,  by  appropriating  the  five  hundred  to  their  own 
use,  convert  the  action  of  the  government  into  the  means  of  making 
money,  and,  of  consequence,  would  have  a  direct  interest  in  increasing 
the  taxes.  They  put  in  three  hundred  and  take  out  five  :  that  is,  they 
take  back  to  themselves  all  that  they  had  put  in,  and  in  addition,  that 
which  was  put  in  by  their  associates ;  or,  in  other  words,  taking  taxa 
tion  and  appropriation  together,  they  have  gained,  and  their  associates 
have  lost,  two  hundred  dollars  by  the  fiscal  action  of  the  government. 
Opposite  interests,  in  reference  to  the  action  of  the  government,  are 
thus  created  between  them :  the  one  having  an  interest  in  favor,  and 
the  other  against  the  taxes ;  the  one  to  increase,  and  the  other  to  de 
crease  the  taxes ;  the  one  to  retain  the  taxes  when  the  money  is  no 
longer  wanted,  and  the  other  to  repeal  them  when  the  objects  for  which 
they  were  levied  have  been  executed. 

Let  us  now  suppose  this  community  of  five  to  be  raised  to  twenty-four 
individuals,  to  be  governed,  in  like  manner,  by  the  will  of  a  majority: 
it  is  obvious  that  the  same  principle  would  divide  them  into  two 

13 


290  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

interests — into  a  majority  and  a  minority,  thirteen  against  eleven,  or  in 
some  other  proportion ;  and  that  all  the  consequences  which  I  have 
shown  to  be  applicable  to  the  small  community  of  five  would  be  equally 
applicable  to  the  greater,  the  cause  not  depending  upon  the  number,  but 
resulting  necessarily  from  the  action  of  the  government  itself.  Let  us 
now  suppose  that,  instead  of  governing  themselves  directly  in  an 
assembly  of  the  whole,  without  the  intervention  of  agents,  they  should 
adopt  the  representative  principle,  and  that,  instead  of  being  governed 
by  a  majority  of  themselves,  they  should  be  governed  by  a  majority  of 
their  representatives.  It  is  obvious  that  the  operation  of  the  system 
would  not  be  affected  by  the  change  :  the  representatives  being  responsi 
ble  to  those  who  choose  them,  would  conform  to  the  will  of  their  con 
stituents,  and  would  act  as  they  would  do  were  they  present  and  acting 
for  themselves ;  and  the  same  conflict  of  interest,  which  we  have  shown 
would  exist  in  one  oase,  would  equally  exist  in  the  other.  In  either 
case,  the  inevitable  result  would  be  a  system  of  hostile  legislation  on  the 
part  of  the  majority,  or  the  stronger  interest,  against  the  minority,  or 
the  weaker  interest:  the  object  of  which,  on  the  part  of  the  former, 
"would  be  to  exact  as  much  as  possible  from  the  latter,  which  would 
necessarily  be  resisted  by  all  the  means  in  their  power.  Warfare,  by 
legislation,  would  thus  be  commenced  between  the  parties,  with  the 
same  object,  and  not  less  hostile  than  that  which  is  carried  on  between 
distinct  and  rival  nations — the  only  distinction  would  be  in  the  instru 
ments  and  the  mode.  Enactments,  in  the  one  case,  would  supply  what 
could  only  be  effected  by  arms  in  the  other  ;  and  the  inevitable  opera 
tion  would  be  to  engender  the  most  hostile  feelings  between  the  parties, 
which  would  merge  every  feeling  of  patriotism — that  feeling  which 
embraces  the  whole,  and  substitute  in  its  place  the  most  violent  party 
attachment ;  and,  instead  of  having  one  common  centre  of  attachment, 
around  which  the  affections  of  the  community  might  rally,  there  would, 
in  fact,  be  two — the  interests  of  the  majority,  to  wThich  those  who  con 
stitute  that  majority  would  be  more  attached  than  they  would  be  to  the 
whole,  and  that  of  the  minority,  to  which  they,  in  like  manner,  would 
also  be  more  attached  than  to  the  interests  of  the  whole.  Faction 
would  thus  take  the  place  of  patriotism ;  and,  with  the  loss  of  patriot 
ism,  corruption  must  necessarily  follow,  and  in  its  train,  anarchy,  and, 
finally,  despotism,  or  the  establishment  of  absolute  power  in  a  single 
individual,  as  a  means  of  arresting  the  conflict  of  hostile  interests :  on 
the  principle  that  it  is  better  to  submit  to  the  will  of  a  single  individual, 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  291 

who,  by  being  made  lord  and  master  of  the  whole  community,  would 
have  an  equal  interest  in  the  protection  of  all  the  parts. 

Let  us  next  suppose  that,  in  order  to  avert  the  calamitous  train  of 
consequences,  this  little  community  should  adopt  a  written  constitution, 
with  limitations  restricting  the  will  of  the  majority,  in  order  to  protect 
the  minority  against  the  oppression  which  I  have  shown  would  neces 
sarily  result  without  such  restrictions.  It  is  obvious  that  the  case 
would  not  be  in  the  slightest  degree  varied  if  the  majority  be  left  in 
possession  of  the  right  of  judging  exclusively  of  the  extent  of  its  powers, 
without  any  right  on  the  part  of  the  minority  to  enforce  the  restrictions 
imposed  by  the  Constitution  on  the  will  of  the  majority.  The  point  is 
almost  too  clear  for  illustration.  Nothing  can  be  more  certain  than  that, 
when  a  constitution  grants  power,  and  imposes  limitations  on  the  exer 
cise  of  that  power,  whatever  interests  may  obtain  possession  of  the 
government,  will  be  in  favor  of  extending  the  power  at  the  expense  of 
the  limitation ;  and  that,  unless  those  in  whose  behalf  the  limitations 
were  imposed  have,  in  some  form  or  mode,  the  right  of  enforcing  them, 
the  power  will  ultimately  supersede  the  limitation,  and  the  government 
must  operate  precisely  in  the  same  manner  as  if  the  will  of  the  majority 
governed  without  constitution  or  limitation  of  power. 

I  have  thus  presented  all  possible  modes  in  which  a  government 
founded  upon  the  will  of  an  absolute  majority  will  be  modified,  and 
have  demonstrated  that,  in  all  its  forms,  whether  in  a  majority  of  the 
people,  as  in  a  mere  Democracy,  or  in  a  majority  of  their  representatives, 
without  a  constitution  or  with  a  constitution,  to  be  interpreted  as  the 
will  of  the  majority,  the  result  will  be  the  same :  two  hostile  interests 
will  inevitably  be  created  by  the  action  of  the  government,  to  be 
followed  by  hostile  legislation,  and  that  by  faction,  corruption,  anarchy, 
and  despotism. 

The  great  and  solemn  question  here  presents  itself,  Is  there  any 
remedy  for  these  evils  ?  on  the  decision  of  which  depends  the  question, 
whether  the  people  can  govern  themselves,  which  has  been  so  often 
asked  with  so  much  skepticism  and  doubt.  There  is  a  remedy,  and  but 
one,  the  effects  of  which,  whatever  may  be  the  form,  is  to  organize 
society  in  reference  to  this  conflict  of  interests,  which  springs  out  of  the 
action  of  government ;  and  which  can  only  be  done  by  giving  to  each 
part  the  right  of  self-protection ;  which,  in  a  word,  instead  of  consider 
ing  the  community  of  twenty-four  a  single  community,  having  a  common 
interest,  and  to  be  governed  by  the  single  will  of  an  entire  majority, 


292  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1832-33. 

Bhall,  upon  all  questions  tending  to  bring  the  parts  into  conflict,  the 
thirteen  against  the  eleven,  take  the  will,  not  of  the  twenty-four  as  a 
unit,  but  that  of  the  thirteen  and  that  of  the  eleven  separately,  the 
majority  of  each  governing  the  parts,  and  where  they  concur,  governing 
the  whole,  and  where  they  disagree,  arresting  the  action  of  the  govern 
ment.  This  I  will  call  the  concurring,  as  distinct  from  the  absolute 
majority.  It  would  not  be,  as  was  generally  supposed,  a  minority 
governing  a  majority.  In  either  way  the  number  would  be  the  same, 
whether  taken  as  the  absolute  or  as  the  concurring  majority.  Thus,  the 
majority  of  the  thirteen  is  seven,  and  of  the  eleven  six  ;  and  the  two 
together  make  thirteen,  which  is  the  majority  of  twenty-four.  But, 
though  the  number  is  the  same,  the  mode  of  counting  is  essentially 
different :  the  one  representing  the  strongest  interest,  and  the  other,  the 
entire  interests  of  the  community.  The  first  mistake  is,  in  supposing 
that  the  government  of  the  absolute  majority  is  the  government  of  tliis 
people — that  beau  ideal  of  a  perfect  government  which  has  been  so 
enthusiastically  entertained  in  every  age  by  the  generous  and  patriotic, 
where  civilization  and  liberty  have  made  the  smallest  progress.  There 
can  be  no  greater  error  :  the  government  of  the  people  is  the  govern 
ment  of  the  whole  community — of  the  twenty-four — the  self-government 
of  all  the  parts — too  perfect  to  be  reduced  to  practice  in  the  present,  or 
any  past  stage  of  human  society.  The  government  of  the  absolute 
majority,  instead  of  the  government  of  the  people,  is  but  the  govern 
ment  of  the  strongest  interests,  and,  when  not  efficiently  checked,  is  the 
most  tyrannical  and  oppressive  that  can  be  devised.  Between  this  ideal 
perfection  on  one  side  and  despotism  on  the  other,  none  other  can  be 
devised  but  that  which  considers  society  in  reference  to  its  parts,  as 
differently  affected  by  the  action  of  the  government,  and  which  takes  the 
sense  of  each  part  separately,  and  thereby  the  sense  of  the  whole,  in  the 
manner  already  illustrated. 

These  principles,  as  I  have  already  stated,  are  not  affected  by  the 
number  of  which  the  community  may  be  corrlposed,  and  are  just  as  ap 
plicable  to  one  of  thirteen  millions,  the  number  which  composes  ours,  as 
of  the  small  community  of  twenty-four,  which  I  have  supposed  for  the 
purpose  of  illustration  ;  and  are  not  less  applicable  to  the  twenty- four 
states  united  in  one  community,  than  to  the  case  of  the  twenty-four  indi 
viduals.  There  is,  indeed,  a  distinction  between  a  large  and  a  small 
community,  not  affecting  the  principle,  but  the  violence  of  the  action, 
In  the  former,  the  similarity  of  the  interests  of  all  the  parts  will  limit 


1832—33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  293 

the  oppression  from  the  hostile  action  of  the  parts,  in  a  great  degree,  to 
the  fiscal  action  of  the  government  merely ;  but  in  the  large  community, 
spreading  over  a  country  of  great  extent,  and  having  a  great  diversity 
of  interests,  with  different  kinds  of  labor,  capital,  and  production,  the 
conflict  and  oppression  will  extend,  not  only  to  a  monopoly  of  the  ap 
propriations  on  the  part  of  the  stronger  interests,  but  will  end  in  unequal 
taxes,  and  a  general  conflict  between  the  entire  interests  of  conflicting 
sections,  which,  if  not  arrested  by  the  most  powerful  checks,  will  ter 
minate  in  the  most  oppressive  tyranny  that  can  be  conceived,  or  in  the 
destruction  of  the  community  itself. 

If  we  turn  our  attention  from  these  supposed  cases,  and  direct  it  to 
our  government  and  its  actual  operation,  we  shall  find  a  practical  con 
firmation  of  the  truth  of  what  has  been  stated,  not  only  of  the  oppres 
sive  operation  of  the  system  of  an  absolute  majority,  but  also  a  striking 
and  beautiful  illustration,  in  the  formation  of  our  system,  of  the  princi 
ple  of  the  concurring  majority,  as  distinct  from  the  absolute,  which  I 
have  asserted  to  be  the  only  means  of  efficiently  checking  the  abuse  of 
power,  and,  of  course,  the  only  solid  foundation  of  constitutional  liberty. 
That  our  government,  for  many  years,  has  been  gradually  verging  to 
consolidation  ;  that  the  Constitution  has  gradually  become  a  dead  letter  ; 
and  that  all  restrictions  upon  the  power  of  government  have  been  vir 
tually  removed,  so  as  practically  to  convert  the  General  Government 
into  a  government  of  an  absolute  majority,  without  check  or  limitation, 
cannot  be  denied  by  any  one  who  has  impartially  observed  its  opera 
tion. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  trace  the  commencement  and  gradual  progress 
of  the  causes  which  have  produced  this  change  in  our  system ;  it  is 
sufficient  to  state  that  the  change  has  taken  place  within  the  last  few 
years.  What  has  been  the  result  ?  Precisely  that  which  might  have 
been  anticipated :  the  growth  of  faction,  corruption,  anarchy,  and,  if  not 
despotism  itself,  its  near  approach,  as  witnessed  in  the  provisions  of  this 
bill.  And  from  what  have  these  consequences  sprung  ?  We  have  been 
involved  in  no  war  !  We  have  been  at  peace  with  all  the  world.  We 
have  been  visited  with  no  national  calamity.  Our  people  have  been 
advancing  in  general  intelligence,  and,  I  will  add,  as  great  and  alarm 
ing  as  has  been  the  advance  of  political  corruption  among  the  merce 
nary  corps  who  look  to  government  for  support,  the  morals  and  virtue 
of  the  community  at  large  have  been  advancing  in  improvement. 
What,  I  will  again  repeat,  is  the  cause  ?  No  other  can  be  assigned  but 


294  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33 

a  departure  from  the  fundamental  principles  of  the  Constitution,  which 
has  converted  the  government  into  the  will  of  an  absolute  and  irrespon 
sible  majority,  and  which,  by  the  laws  that  must  inevitably  govern  in 
all  such  majorities,  has  placed  in  conflict  the  great  interests  of  the  coun 
try:  by  a  system  of  hostile  legislation,  by  an  oppressive  and  unequal 
imposition  of  taxes,  by  unequal  and  profuse  appropriations,  and  by  ren 
dering  the  entire  labor  and  capital  of  the  weaker  interest  subordinate 
to  the  stronger. 

This  is  the  cause,  and  these  the  fruits,  which  have  converted  the  gov 
ernment  into  a  mere  instrument  of  taking  money  from  one  portion  of 
the  community  to  be  given  to  another,  and  which  has  rallied  around  it 
a  great,  a  powerful,  and  mercenary  corps  of  office-holders,  office-seekers, 
and  expectants,  destitute  of  principle  and  patriotism,  and  who  have  no 
standard  of  morals  or  politics  but  the  will  of  the  executive — the  will  of 
him  who  has  the  distribution  of  the  loaves  and  the  fishes.  I  hold  it  im 
possible  for  any  one  to  look  at  the  theoretical  illustration  of  the  princi 
ple  of  the  absolute  majority  in  the  cases  which  I  have  supposed,  and 
not  be  struck  with  the  practical  illustration  in  the  actual  operation  of 
our  government.  Under  every  circumstance,  the  absolute  majority 
will  ever  have  its  American  system  (I  mean  nothing  offensive  to  any 
senator) ;  but  the  real  meaning  of  the  American  system  is,  that  system 
of  plunder  which  the  strongest  interest  has  ever  waged,  and  will  ever 
wage,  against  the  weaker,  where  the  latter  is  not  armed  with  some 
efficient  and  constitutional  check  to  arrest  its  action.  Nothing  but  such 
check  on  the  part  of  the  weaker  interest  can  arrest  it ;  mere  constitu 
tional  limitations  are  wholly  insufficient.  Whatever  interest  obtains 
possession  of  the  government  will,  from  the  nature  of  things,  be  in  favor 
of  the  powers,  and  against  the  limitations  imposed  by  the  Constitution, 
and  will  resort  to  every  device  that  can  be  imagined  to  remove  those 
restraints.  On  the  contrary,  the  opposite  interest,  that  which  I  have 
designated  as  the  stock-holding  interest,  the  tax-payers,  those  on  whom 
the  system  operates,  will  resist  the  abuse  of  powers,  and  contend  for 
the  limitations.  And  it  is  on  this  point,  then,  that  the  contest  between 
the  delegated  and  the  reserved  powers  will  be  waged ;  but  in  this  con 
test,  as  the  interests  in  possession  of  the  government  are  organized  and 
armed  by  all  its  powers  and  patronage,  the  opposite  interest,  if  not  in 
like  manner  organized  and  possessed  of  a  power  to  protect  themselves 
tinder  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  will  be  as  inevitably  crushed 
as  would  be  a  band  of  unorganized  militia  when  opposed  by  a  veteran 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  295 

and  trained  corps  of  regulars.  Let  it  never  be  forgotten  that  power 
can  only  be  opposed  by  power,  organization  by  organization ;  and  on 
this  theory  stands  our  beautiful  federal  system  of  government.  No  free 
system  was  ever  farther  removed  from  the  principle  that  the  absolute 
majority,  without  check  or  limitation,  ought  to  govern.  To  understand 
what  our  government  is,  we  must  look  to  the  Constitution,  which  is  the 
basis  of  the  system.  I  do  not  intend  to  enter  into  any  minute  examina 
tion  of  the  origin  and  the  source  of  its  powers ;  it  is  sufficient  for  my 
purpose  to  state,  what  I  do  fearlessly,  that  it  derived  its  power  from  the 
people  of  the  separate  states,  each  ratifying  by  itself,  each  binding  itself 
by  its  own  separate  majority,  through  its  separate  convention,  the  con 
currence  of  the  majorities  of  the  several  states  forming  the  Constitution, 
thus  taking  the  sense  of  the  whole  by  that  of  the  several  parts,  repre 
senting  the  various  interests  of  the  entire  community.  It  was  this  con 
curring  and  perfect  majority  which  formed  the  Constitution,  and  not 
that  majority  which  would  consider  the  American  people  as  a  single 
community,  and  which,  instead  of  representing  fairly  and  fully  the  in 
terests  of  the  whole,  would  but  represent,  as  has  been  stated,  the  inter 
est  of  the  stronger  section.  No  candid  man  can  dispute  that  I  have 
given  a  correct  description  of  the  constitution-making  power ;  that 
power  which  created  and  organized  the  government,  which  delegated  to 
it,  as  a  common  agent,  certain  powers,  in  trust  for  the  common  good  of 
all  the  states,  and  which  imposed  strict  limitation  and  checks  against 
abuses  and  usurpations.  In  administering  the  delegated  powers,  the 
Constitution  provides,  very  properly,  in  order  to  give  promptitude  and 
efficiency,  that  the  government  shall  be  organized  upon  the  principle  of 
the  absolute  majority,  or,  rather,  of  two  absolute  majorities  combined: 
a  majority  of  the  states  considered  as  bodies  politic,  which  prevails  in 
this  body ;  and  a  majority  of  the  people  of  the  states,  estimated  in  fed 
eral  numbers,  in  the  other  house  of  Congress.  A  combination  of  the 
two  prevails  in  the  choice  of  the  President,  and,  of  course,  in  the  ap 
pointment  of  judges,  they  being  nominated  by  the  President  and  con 
firmed  by  the  Senate.  It  is  thus  that  the  concurring  and  the  absolute 
majorities  are  combined  in  one  complex  system :  the  one  in  forming  tho 
Constitution,  and  the  other  in  making  and  executing  the  laws ;  thus 
beautifully  blending  the  moderation,  justice,  and  equity  of  the  former, 
and  more  perfect  majority,  with  the  promptness  and  energy  of  the 
latter,  but  less  perfect. 
To  maintain  the  ascendency  of  the  Constitution  over  the  law-making 


296  JOHN  CALBWELL  CALHOUN.     [1832-33. 

majority  is  the  great  and  essential  point,  on  which  the  success  of  tha 
system  must  depend :  unless  that  ascendency  can  be  preserved,  th* 
necessary  consequence  must  be,  that  the  laws  will  supersede  the  Con- 
stitu^ion,  and,  finally,  the  will  of  the  executive,  by  the  influence  of  his 
patronage,  will  supersede  the  laws,  indications  of  which  are  already 
perceptible.  This  ascendency  can  only  be  preserved  through  the  action, 
of  the  states  as  organized  bodies,  having  their  own  separate  govern 
ments)  and  possessed  of  the  right,  under  the  structure  of  our  system^ 
of  judging  of  the  extent  of  their  separate  powers,  and  of  interposing 
their  authority  to  arrest  the-  enactments  of  the  General  Government 
within  their  respective  limits.  I  will  not  enter  at  this  time  into  the 
discussion  of  this  important  point,  as  it  has  been  ably  and  fully  pre 
sented  by  the  senator  from  Kentucky  (Mr.  Bibb),  and  others  who  pre 
ceded  him  in  this  debate  on  the  same  side,  whose  arguments  not  only 
remain  unanswered,  but  are  unanswerable.  It  is  only  by  this  powesr 
of  interposition  that  the  reserved  rights  of  the  states  can  be  peacefully 
and  efficiently  protected  agaisst  the  encroachments  of  the  General 
Government,  that  the  limitations  imposed  upon  its  authority  will  be- 
enforced,  and  its  movements  confined  to  the  orbit  allotted  to  it  by  the 
Constitution. 

It  has,  indeed,  been  said  in  debate,  that  this  can  be  effected  by  the 
organization  of  the  General  Government  itself,  particularly  by  the  actiov 
of  this  body,  which  represents  the  states,  and  tbat  the  states  themselve*- 
must  look  to  the  General  Government  for  the  preservation  of  many  of 
the  most  important  of  their  reserved  rights.  I  do  not  underrate  th<? 
value  to  be  attached  to  the  organic  arrangement  of  the  General  Gov 
ernment,  and  the  wise  distribution  of  its  powers  between  the  several 
departments,  and,  in  particular,  the  structure  and  the  important  func 
tions  of  this  body ;  but  to  suppose  that  the  Senate,  or  any  department 
of  this  government,  was  intended  to  be  the  only  guardian  of  the  re 
served  rights,  is  a  great  and  fundamental  mistake.  The  government, 
through  all  its  departments,  represents  the  delegated,  a»ed  aot  the- 
reserved  powers ;  and  it  is  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  principle  of 
free  institutions  to  suppose  that  aay  but  the  responsible  representative 
of  any  interest  can  be  its  guardian.  The  distribution  of  the  powers 
of  the  General  Government,  and  its  organization,  were  arranged  to  pre 
vent  the  abuse  of  power  in  fulfilling  the  important  trusts  confided  to  i& 
and  not,  as  preposterously  supposed,  to  protect  the  reserved  powera 
are  confided  wholly  to  th.e  guardianship  of  tbe  several  states. 


1832-33.]       s^tUCfl    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  297 

Against  the  view  of  our  system  which  I,  have  presented,  and  the 
right  of  the  state  to  interpose,  it  is  objected  that  it  would  lead  to  anar 
chy  and  dissolution.  I  consider  the  objection  as  without  the  slightest 
foundation,  and  that,  so  far  from  tending  to  weakness  or  disunion,  it  is 
the  source  of  the  highest  power  and  of  the  strongest  cement.  Nor  is 
its  tendency  in  this  respect  difficult  of  explanation.  The  government 
of  an  absolute  majority,  unchecked  by  efficient  constitutional  restraint, 
though  apparently  strong,  is,  in  reality,  an  exceedingly  feeble  govern 
ment.  That  tendency  to  conflict  between  the  parts,  which  I  have 
shown  to  be  inevitable  in  such  governments,  wastes  the  powers  of  the 
state  in  the  hostile  action  of  contending  factions,  which  leaves  very  little 
more  power  than  the  excess  of  the  strength  of  the  majority  over  the 
minority.  But  a  government  based  upon  the  principle  of  the  concur 
ring  majority,  where  each  great  interest  possesses  within  itself  the 
means  of  self-protection,  which  ultimately  requires  the  mutual  consent 
of  all  the  parts,  necessarily  causes  that  unanimity  in  council,  and  ardent 
attachment  of  all  the  parts  to  the  Avhole,  which  give  an  irresistible 
energy  to  a  government  so  constituted.  I  might  appeal  to  history  for 
the  truth  of  these  remarks,  of  which  the  Roman  furnishes  the  most 
familiar  and  striking.  It  is  a  well-known  fact,  that,  from  the  expulsion 
of  the  Tarquins  to  the  time  of  the  establishment  of  the  tribunitian 
power,  the  government  fell  into  a  state  of  the  greatest  disorder  and 
distraction,  and,  I  may  add,  corruption.  How  did  this  happen  ?  The 
explanation  will  throw  important  light  on  the  subject  under  considera 
tion.  The  community  was  divided  into  two  parts — the  Patricians  and 
the  Plebeians :  with  the  power  of  the  state  principally  in  the  hands  of 
the  former,  without  adequate  check  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  latter. 
The  result  was  as  might  be  expected.  The  patricians  converted  the 
powers  of  the  government  into  the  means  of  making  money,  to  enrich 
themselves  and  their  dependants.  They,  in  a  word,  had  their  American 
system,  growing  out  of  the  peculiar  character  of  the  government  and 
condition  of  the  country.  This  requires  explanation.  At  that  period, 
according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  when  one  nation  conquered  another, 
the  lands  of  the  vanquished  belonged  to  the  victors ;  and,  according  to 
the  Roman  law,  the  lands  thus  acquired  were  divided  into  two  parts, 
one  allotted  to  the  poorer  class  of  the  people,  and  the  other  assigned 
to  the  use  of  the  treasury,  of  which  the  patricians  had  the  distribution 
and  administration.  The  patricians  abused  their  power  by  withholding 
from  the  plebeians  that  which  ought  to  have  been  allotted  to  them,  and 


298  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.     [1832-33. 

by  converting  to  their  own  use  that  which  ought  to  have  gone  to  the 
treasury.  In  a  word,  they  took  to  themselves  the  entire  spoils  of  vic 
tory,  and  they  had  thus  the  most  powerful  motive  to  keep  the  state 
perpetually  involved  in  war,  to  the  utter  impoverishment  and  oppres 
sion  of  the  plebeians.  After  resisting  the  abuse  of  power  by  all  peace 
able  means,  and  the  oppression  becoming  intolerable,  the  plebeians,  at 
last,  withdrew  from  the  city — they,  in  a  word,  seceded ;  and  to  induce 
them  to  reunite,  the  patricians  conceded  to  the  plebeians,  as  the  means 
of  protecting  their  separate  interests,  the  very  power  which  I  contend 
is  necessary  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  states,  but  which  is  now  repre 
sented  as  necessarily  leading  to  disunion.  They  granted  to  them  the 
right  of  choosing  three  tribunes  from  among  themselves,  whose  persons 
should  be  sacred,  and  who  should  have  the  right  of  interposing  their 
veto,  not  only  against  the  passage  of  laws,  but  even  against  their  exe 
cution  :  a  power  which  those  who  take  a  shallow  insight  into  human 
nature  would  pronounce  inconsistent  with  the  strength  and  unity  of  the 
state,  if  not  utterly  impracticable  ;  yet,  so  far  from  that  being  the  effect, 
from  that  day  the  genius  of  Rome  became  ascendant,  and  victory  fol 
lowed  her  steps  till  she  had  established  an  almost  universal  dominion. 
How  can  a  result  so  contrary  to  all  anticipation  be  explained?  The 
explanation  appears  to  me  to  be  simple.  No  measure  or  movement 
could  be  adopted  without  the  concurring  assent  of  both  the  patricians 
and  plebeians,  and  each  thus  became  dependent  on  the  other ;  and  of 
consequence,  the  desire  and  objects  of  neither  could  be  effected  without 
the  concurrence  of  the  other.  To  obtain  this  concurrence,  each  was 
compelled  to  consult  the  good-will  of  the  other,  and  to  elevate  to  office, 
not  simply  those  who  might  have  the  confidence  of  the  order  to  which 
he  belonged,  but  also  that  of  the  other.  The  result  was,  that  men 
possessing  those  qualities  which  would  naturally  command  confidence — 
moderation,  wisdom,  justice,  and  patriotism— were  elevated  to  office; 
and  these,  by  the  weight  of  their  authority  and  the  prudence  of  their 
counsel,  together  with  that  spirit  of  unanimity  necessarily  resulting 
from  the  concurring  assent  of  the  two  orders,  furnishes  the  real  ex 
planation  of  the  power  of  the  Roman  State,  and  of  that  extraordinary 
wisdom,  moderation,  and  firmness  which  in  so  remarkable  a  degree 
characterized  her  public  men.  I  might  illustrate  the  truth  of  the  posi 
tion  which  I  have  laid  down  by  a  reference  to  the  history  of  all  free 
states,  ancient  and  modern,  distinguished  for  their  power  and  patriotism, 
and  conclusively  show,  not  only  that  there  was  not  one  which  had  not 


1832-33.]       SPEECH    AGAINST    THE    FORCE    BILL.  299 

some  contrivance,  under  some  form,  by  which  the  concurring  assent  of 
the  different  portions  of  the  community  was  made  necessary  in  the  ac 
tion  of  government,  but  also  that  the  virtue,  patriotism,  and  strength 
of  the  state  were  in  direct  proportion  to  the  perfection  of  the  means  of 
securing  such  assent.  In  estimating  the  operation  of  this  principle  in 
our  system,  which  depends,  as  I  have  stated,  on  the  right  of  interposition 
on  the  part  of  the  state,  we  must  not  omit  to  take  into  consideration 
the  amending  power,  by  which  new  powers  may  be  granted,  or  any 
derangement  of  the  system  be  corrected,  by  the  concurring  assent  of 
three  fourths  of  the  states,  and  thus,  in  the  same  degree,  strengthening 
the  power  of  repairing  any  derangement  occasioned  by  the  eccentric 
action  of  a  state.  In  fact,  the  power  of  interposition,  fairly  understood, 
may  be  considered  in  the  light  of  an  appeal  against  the  usurpations  of 
the  General  Government,  the  joint  agent  of  all  the  states,  to  the  states 
themselves,  to  be  decided  under  the  amending  power,  affirmatively  in 
favor  of  the  government,  by  the  voice  of  three  fourths  of  the  states,  as 
the  highest  power  known  under  the  system.  I  know  the  difficulty  in 
our  country,  of  establishing  the  truth  of  the  principle  for  which  I  con 
tend,  though  restkig  upon  the  clearest  reason,  and  tested  by  the  uni 
versal  experience  of  free  nations.  I  know  that  the  governments  of 
the  several  states  will  be  cited  as  an  argument  against  the  conclusion 
to  which  I  have  arrived,  and  which,  for  the  most  part,  are  constructed 
on  the  principle  of  the  absolute  majority ;  but,  in  my  opinion,  a  satis 
factory  answer  can  be  given :  that  the  objects  of  expenditure  which  fall 
within  the  sphere  of  a  state  government  are  few  and  inconsiderable,  so 
that,  be  their  action  ever  so  irregular,  it  can  occasion  but  little  derange 
ment.  If,  instead  of  being  members  of  this  great  confederacy,  they 
formed  distinct  communities,  and  were  compelled  to  raise  armies,  and 
incur  other  expenses  necessary  to  their  defence,  the  laws  which  I  have 
laid  down  as  necessarily  controlling  the  action  of  the  state  where  the 
will  of  an  absolute  and  unchecked  majority  prevailed,  would  speedily 
disclose  themselves  in  faction,  anarchy,  and  corruption.  Even  as  the 
case  is,  the  operation  of  the  causes  to  which  I  have  referred  is  percep 
tible  in  some  of  the  larger  and  more  populous  members  of  the  Union, 
whose  governments  have  a  powerful  central  action,  and  which  already 
show  a  strong  tendency  to  that  moneyed  action  which  is  the  invariable 
forerunner  of  corruption  and  convulsions. 

But  to  return  to  the  General  Government,  we  have  now  sufficient  ex 
perience  to  ascertain  that  the  tendency  to  conflict  in  its  action  is  be- 


300  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1832-33. 

tween  Southern  and  other  sections.  The  latter  having  a  decided  ma 
jority,  must  habitually  be  possessed  of  the  powers  of  the  government, 
both  in  this  and  in  the  other  house ;  and,  being  governed  by  that  in 
stinctive  love  of  power  so  natural  to  the  human  breast,  they  must  be 
come  the  advocates  of  the  power  of  government,  and  in  the  same 
degree  opposed  to  the  limitations ;  while  the  other  and  weaker  section 
is  as  necessarily  thrown  on  the  side  of  the  limitations.  One  section  is 
the  natural  guardian  of  the  delegated  powers,  and  the  other  of  the  re 
served  ;  and  the  struggle  on  the  side  of  the  former  will  be  to  enlarge 
the  powers,  while  that  on  the  opposite  side  will  be  to  restrain  them 
within  their  constitutional  limits.  The  contest  will,  in  fact,  be  a  con 
test  between  power  and  liberty,  and  such  I  consider  the  present — a 
contest  in  which  the  weaker  section,  with  its  peculiar  labor,  produc 
tions,  and  institutions,  has  at  stake  all  that  can  be  dear  to  freemen. 
Should  we  be  able  to  maintain  in  their  full  vigor  our  reserved  rights, 
liberty  and  prosperity  will  be  our  portion  ;  but  if  we  yield,  and  per 
mit  the  stronger  interest  to  concentrate  within  itself  all  the  powers  of 
the  government,  then  will  our  fate  be  more  wretched  than  that  of  the 
aborigines  whom  we  have  expelled.  In  this  great  struggle  between 
the  delegated  and  reserved  powers,  so  far  from  repining  that  my  lot, 
and  that  of  those  whom  I  represent,  is  cast  on  the  side  of  the  latter, 
I  rejoice  that  such  is  the  fact ;  for,  though  we  participate  in  but  few  of 
the  advantages  of  the  government,  we  are  compensated,  and  more 
than  compensated,  in  not  being  so  much  exposed  to  its  corruption.  Nor 
do  I  repine  that  Hie  duty,  so  difficult  to  be  discharged,  as  the  defence 
of  the  reserved  powers,  against  apparently  such  fearful  odds,  has  been 
assigned  to  us.  To  discharge  successfully  this  high  duty  requires  the 
highest  qualities,  moral  and  intellectual ;  and  should  we  perform  it 
with  a  zeal  and  ability  in  proportion  to  its  magnitude,  instead  of  being 
mere  planters,  our  section  will  become  distinguished  for  its  patriots 
and  statesmen.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  if  we  prove  unworthy  of  this 
high  destiny — if  we  yield  to  the  steady  encroachment  of  power,  the 
severest  calamity  and  most  debasing  corruption  will  overspread  the 
land.  Every  Southern  man,  true  to  the  interests  of  his  section,  and 
faithful  to  the  duties  which  Providence  has  allotted  him,  will  be  for 
ever  excluded  from  the  honors  and  emoluments  of  this  government, 
which  will  be  reserved  for  those  only  who  have  qualified  themselves, 
by  political  prostitution,  for  admission  into  the  Magdalen  Asylum. 

Mr.  Calhoun  spoke  on  the   15th  of  February,  and 


1833]  ARGUMENT    OF    MR.  WEBSTER.  301 

three  days  afterward  the  bill  was  ordered  to  be  en 
grossed  for  a  third  reading,  by  a  vote  of  thirty-two  to 
eight.  Those  who  voted  in  the  negative  were  Mr. 
Bibb  of  Kentucky,  Mr.  Calhoun  and  Mr.  Miller  of 
South  Carolina,  Mr.  King  and  Mr.  Moore  of  Alabama, 
Mr.  Mangum  of  North  Carolina,  Mr.  Troup  of  Georgia, 
and  Mr.  Tyler  of  Virginia.  Mr.  Clay,  Mr.  Benton,  and 
several  other  senators,  absented  themselves,  and  did 
not  vote  on  the  question.  The  bill  was  pressed  to  a 
final  vote  on  the  20th  instant.  All  the  senators  op 
posed  to  it  except  Mr.  Tyler  having  left  the  Senate 
chamber,  it  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  thirty-two  to  one 
(Mr.  Tyler.) 

In  his  speech  on  the  Force  Bill,  Mr.  Calhoun  pur 
posely  avoided  the  discussion  of  the  principles  involved 
in  his  resolutions,  except  in  general  terms,  because  he 
wished  to  deprive  Mr.  Webster  of  the  advantage  of 
attacking  his  positions  when  he  would  be  precluded 
from  a  reply.  Mr.  Webster  followed  Mr.  Calhoun  in 
the  debate  on  the  Force  Bill ;  and  instead  of  confining 
himself  to  the  merits  of  the  question  actually  before 
the  Senate,  he  went  into  an  elaborate  examination  of 
the  principles  on  which  the  government  was  formed, 
and  taking  the  extreme  federal  ground  in  support  and 
defence  of  consolidation,  attacked  with  much  vehemence 
and  ability  the  positions  laid  down  by  Mr.  Calhoun  in 
his  resolutions.  The  latter  had  anticipated  this,  and 
after  the  passage  of  the  Force  Bill,  the  Senate,  at  his 
request,  assigned  a  day  when  he  should  be  heard  in 
defence  of  his  resolutions. 

The  question  at  issue  was  of  the  highest  importance. 
It  was  a  contest  between  extremes — ultra  Federalism 


302  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833. 

and  Consolidation  on  the  one  hand,  and  ultra  State 
Rights  on  the  other.  Mr.  Webster  saw  where  the  real 
point  lay,  and  had  the  frankness  to  concede  it.  He 
could  not  but  admit  that  if  the  Constitution  was  a  com 
pact  between  the  states,  as  the  whole  Republican  party 
then,  as  now,  contended,  nullification,  state  interposi 
tion,  and  secession,  followed  as  a  matter  of  course.* 
Mr.  Webster,  therefore,  maintained  that  the  Constitu 
tion  was  not  only  a  compact  between  the  states,  but 
that  after  its  ratification  it  became  the  fundamental 
law,  supreme  in  its  authority  to  the  extent  of  the 
delegated  powers,  binding  the  states  and  the  whole 
American  people  in  the  aggregate,  and  thus  forming 
one  indivisible  nation. 

"  Whether  the  Constitution  be  a  compact  between 
states  in  their  sovereign  capacities,"  he  said,  "  is  a 
question  which  must  be  mainly  argued  from  what  is 
contained  in  the  instrument  itself.  We  all  agree  that  it 
is  an  instrument  which  has  been  in  some  way  clothed 
with  power.  We  all  admit  that  it  speaks  with  author 
ity.  The  first  question  then  is — What  does  it  say  of 
itself?  What  does  it  purport  to  be  ?  Does  it  style  itself 
a  league,  confederacy,  or  compact  between  sovereign 
states  ?  It  is  to  be  remembered,  that  the  Constitution 
began  to  speak  only  after  its  adoption.  Until  it  was 
ratified  by  nine  states,  it  was  but  a  proposal,  the  mere 
draft  of  an  instrument.  It  was  like  a  deed  drawn  but 
not  executed.  The  Convention  had  framed  it ;  sent  it 

*  Mr.  Grundy  admitted  in  his  resolutions,  that  nullification  was  the 
rightful  remedy  in  the  last  resort ;  and  he  was  one  of  the  leaders,  and 
on  this  occasion  was  regarded  as  the  organ,  of  the  administration  or 
Jackson  party. 


1833.]  SPEECH    ON    HIS    RESOLUTIONS.  303 

to  Congress  then  sitting  under  the  Confederation  :  Con 
gress  had  transmitted  it  to  the  State  Legislatures  ;  and 
by  the  last,  it  was  laid  before  the  Conventions  of  the 
people  in  the  several  states.  All  this  while  it  was  in 
operative  paper.  It  had  received  no  stamp  of  authority : 
it  spoke  no  language.  But  when  ratified  by  the  people 
in  their  respective  Conventions,  then  it  had  a  voice  and 
spoke  authentically.  Every  word  in  it  had  then  re 
ceived  the  sanction  of  the  popular  will,  and  was  to  be 
received  as  the  expression  of  that  will.  What  the 
Constitution  says  of  itself,  therefore,  is  as  conclusive  as 
what  it  says  on  any  other  point.  Does  it  call  itself  a 
'  compact  ?'  Certainly  not.  It  uses  the  word  compact 
but  once,  and  that  is,  when  it  declares  that  the  states 
shall  enter  into  no  compact.  Does  it  call  itself  a 
*  league,'  a  '  confederacy,'  a  '  subsisting  treaty  between 
the  states  ?'  Certainly  not.  There  is  not  a  particle  of 
such  language  in  all  its  pages.  But  it  declares  itself  a 
CONSTITUTION.  What  is  a  Constitution?  Certainly  not 
a  league  or  confederacy,  but  &  fundamental  law.  That 
fundamental  regulation  which  determines  the  manner 
in  which  the  public  authority  is  to  be  executed,  is  what 
forms  the  Constitution  of  a  State.  Those  primary 
rules  which  concern  the  body  itself,  and  the  very  being 
of  the  political  society,  the  form  of  government  and  the 
manner  in  which  power  is  to  be  exercised — all,  in  a 
\vord,  which  form  together  the  Constitution  of  a  state — 
these  are  fundamental  laws.  This  is  the  language  of 
the  public  writers.  But  do  we  need  to  be  informed  in 
this  country  what  a  constitution  is  ?  Is  it  not  an  idea 
perfectly  familiar,  definite  and  well  settled?  We  are 
at  no  loss  to  understand  what  is  meant  by  the  Constitu- 


304  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833 

tio'n  of  one  of  the  states — and  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  speaks  of  itself  as  being  an  instrument 
of  the  same  nature.  It  says,  this  Constitution  shall  be 
the  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  State  Constitutions  i  ^ 
the  contrary,  notwithstanding.  And  speaks  of  itsel 
too,  in  plain  contradistinction  from  a  confederation  :  fo. 
it  says,  that  all  debts  contracted,  and  all  engagements 
entered  into  by  the  United  States,  shall  be  as  valid 
under  this  Constitution  as  under  the  Confederation*  It 
does  not  say,  as  valid  under  this  compact,  or  this  league, 
or  this  confederation,  as  under  the  former  confederation, 
but  as  valid  under  this  Constitution." 

Mr.  Calhoun  replied  to  Mr.  Webster  on  the  26th  of 
February,  in  a  most  masterly  effort  made  in  the  presence 
of  a  large  and  attentive  audience.  All  felt  the  influence 
of  the  mighty  mind  whose  energies  were  now  taxed  to 
the  utmost,  and  hundreds  who  could  not  or  would  not 
be  convinced  by  his  reasoning,  listened  with  admira 
tion  and  delight  to  the  torrent  of  argument  that  rolled 
in  an  incessant  flow  from  his  lips.  He  maintained  that 
the  Constitution  was  strictly  a  compact  between  sover 
eign  bodies,  and  that  each  state  as  a  party  could  declare 
the  nature  and  extent  of  her  obligations,  in  the  same 

*  [But  the  Constitution  does  not  say  that  such  debts  or  engagements 
are  of  any  greater  validity  under  the  Constitution  than  under  the  Arti 
cles  of  Confederation,  which  they  certainly  would  be,  if,  as  contended 
by  Mr.  Webster,  the  Constitution  is  not  a  compact ;  because  in  that 
case  they  would  be  binding  and  obligatory,  not  only  upon  the  states, 
but  also  upon  the  American  people  in  the  aggregate.  Is  not  the  in 
ference  irresistible,  then,  that  the  Constitution  was  designed  to  be  a  sub 
stitute  merely  for  the  Confederation, — enlarging  the  powers  of  the 
federal  authority  and  constituting  different  representatives  of  that  au 
thority,  though  not  in  fact  changing  its  nature  or  character  ?] 


1833.]  HIS  POSITION.  305 

manner  as  in  the  analogous  case  of  a  treaty  or  alliance 
between  two  powers  or  governments.  The  Constitu 
tion  was  formed  by  a  federal  convention  of  the  states, 
and  ratified  by  the  states  as  states,  through  the  inter 
position  of  Conventions,  for,  obviously,  the  state  legisla 
tures  had  no  power  to  bind  their  constituents  on  such 
a  question :  it  was  not  submitted  to  the  people  in  the 
aggregate,  but  each  state  voted  upon  it  separately,  in 
its  sovereign  capacity. 

Mr.  Calhoun  sustained  his  position  that  the  Constitu 
tion  was  a  compact  by  quoting  the  language  of  Mr. 
Webster  himself,  who,  in  his  reply  to  Mr.  Hayne  on 
the  26th  of  January,  1830,  had  referred  to  the  federal 
constitution  as  a  "compact,"  and  as  "the  constitutional 
compact."  H-e  also  cited  the  ratification  resolutions 
of  the  Massachusetts  convention  in  1788,  which  charac 
terized  the  Constitution  as  "an  explicit  and  solemn 
compact,"  and  to  the  similar  terms  employed  by  the 
legislature  of  that  state  in  their  reply  to  the  Virginia 
resolutions  of  1798.  These  resolutions  had  declared 
the  Constitution  to  be  a  compact  between  the  states, 
which  Massachusetts  expressly  recognized  in  her  an 
swer,  while  it  was  not  denied  by  Delaware,  New  York, 
Connecticut,  New  Hampshire,  or  Vermont,  who  also 
replied  to  the  resolutions,  and,  by  their  silence,  acqui 
esced  in  this  construction. 

The  great  principle  for  which  Mr.  Calhoun  contended, 
was  embraced  in  the  first  resolution,  which,  being  ad 
mitted,  the  other  resolutions  were  the  irresistible  infer 
ences  or  conclusions.  The  first  resolution,  said  Mr. 
Calhoun,  "contains  three  propositions,  First,  that  the 
Constitution  is  a  compact ;  second,  that  it  was  formed 


306  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833 

by  the  states,  constituting  distinct  communities ;  and, 
lastly,  that  it  is  a  subsisting  and  binding  compact 
between  the  states.  How  do  these  three  propositions 
now  stand  ?  The  first,  I  trust,  has  been  satisfactorily 
established ;  the  second,  the  senator  has  admitted,  faint 
ly,  indeed,  but  still  he  has  admitted  it  to  be  true.  This 
admission  is  something.  It  is  so  much  gained  by 
discussion.  Three  years  ago  even  this  was  a  contested 
point.  But  I  cannot  say  that  I  thank  him  for  the 
admission :  we  owe  it  to  the  force  of  truth.  The  fact 
that  these  states  were  declared  to  be  free  and  independ 
ent  states  at  the  time  of  their  independence ;  that  they 
were  acknowledged  to  be  so  by  Great  Britain  in  the 
treaty  which  terminated  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  and 
secured  their  independence  ;  that  they  were  recognized 
in  the  same  character  in  the  old  articles  of  the  Con 
federation  ;  and,  finally,  that  the  present  Constitution 
was  formed  by  a  convention  of  the  several  states, 
afterward  submitted  to  them  for  their  ratification,  and 
was  ratified  by  them  separately,  each  for  itself,  and 
each,  by  its  own  act,  binding  its  citizens,  formed  a  body 
of  facts  too  clear  to  be  denied  and  too  strong  to  be 
resisted. 

"  It  now  remains  to  consider  the  third  and  last 
proposition  contained  in  the  resolution — that  it  is  a 
binding  and  a  subsisting  compact  between  the  states. 
The  senator  was  not  explicit  on  this  point.  I  under 
stood  him,  however,  as  asserting  that,  though  formed  by 
the  states,  the  Constitution  was  not  binding  between 
the  states  as  distinct  communities,  but  between  the 
American  people  in  the  aggregate,  who,  in  consequence 
of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  according  to  the 


1833.]       THE    CONSTITUTION    A    BINDING    COMPACT.        307 

opinion  of  the  senator,  became  one  people,  at  least  to  the 
extent  of  the  delegated  powers.  This  would,  indeed, 
be  a  great  change.  All  acknowledge,  that  previous  to 
•the  adoption  of  the  Constitution,  the  states  constituted 
listinct  and  independent  communities,  in  full  possession 
of  their  sovereignty  ;  and,  surely,  if  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution  was  intended  to  effect  the  great  and  im 
portant  change  in  their  condition  which  the  theory  of 
the  senator  supposes,  some  evidence  of  it  ought  to  be 
found  in  the  instrument  itself.  It  professes  to  be  a 
careful  and  full  enumeration  of  all  the  powers  which 
the  states  delegated,  and  of  every  modification  of  their 
political  condition.  The  senator  said  that  he  looked 
to  the  Constitution  in  order  to  ascertain  its  real  charac 
ter  ;  and,  surely,  he  ought  to  look  to  the  same  instru 
ment  in  order  to  ascertain  what  changes  were,  in  fact, 
made  in  the  political  condition  of  the  states  and  the 
country.  But  with  the  exception  of  *  We,  the  people 
of  the  United  States'  in  the  preamble,  he  has  not 
pointed  out  a  single  indication  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
great  change  which  he  conceives  has  been  effected  in 
this  respect. 

"  Now,  sir,  I  intend  to  prove  that  the  only  argument 
on  which  the  senator  relies  on  this  point  must  utterly 
fail  him.  I  do  not  intend  to  go  into  a  critical  examina 
tion  of  the  expression  of  the  preamble  to  which  I  have 
referred.  I  do  not  deem  it  necessary ;  but  were  it,  it 
might  easily  be  shown  that  it  is  at  least  as  applicable  to 
my  view  of  the  Constitution  as  to  that  of  the  senator, 
and  that  the  whole  of  his  argument  on  this  point  rests 
on  the  ambiguity  of  the  term  thirteen  United  States ; 
which  may  mean  certain  territorial  limits,  comprehend- 


308  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833 

ing  within  them  the  whole  of  the  states  and  territories 
of  the  Union.  In  this  sense  the  people  of  the  United 
States  may  mean  all  the  people  living  within  these 
limits,  without  reference  to  the  states  or  territories  in 
which  they  may  reside,  or  of  which  they  may  be 
citizens,  and  it  is  in  this  sense  only  that  the  expression 
gives  the  least  countenance  to  the  argument  of  the 
senator.  But  it  may  also  mean  the  slates  united,  which 
inversion  alone,  without  farther  explanation,  removes 
the  ambiguity  to  which  I  have  referred.  The  expres 
sion,  in  this  sense,  obviously  means  no  more  than  to 
speak  of  the  people  of  the  several  states  in  their  united 
and  confederated  capacity;  and,  if  it  were  requisite,  it 
might  be  shown  that  it  is  only  in  this  sense  that  the 
expression  is  used  in  the  Constitution.  But  it  is  not 
necessary.  A  single  argument  will  forever  settle  this 
point.  Whatever  may  be  the  true  meaning  of  this 
expression,  it  is  not  applicable  to  the  condition  of  the 
states  as  they  exist  under  the  Constitution,  but  as  it  was 
under  the  old  Confederation,  before  its  adoption.  The 
Constitution  had  not  yet  been  adopted,  and  the  states, 
in  ordaining  it,  could  only  speak  of  themselves  in  the 
condition  in  which  they  then  existed,  and  not  in  that  in 
which  they  would  exist  under  the  Constitution,  so  that, 
if  the  argument  of  the  senator  proves  anything,  it 
proves,  not,  as  he  supposes,  that  the  Constitution  forms 
the  American  people  into  an  aggregate  mass  of  indirid- 
uals,  but  that  such  was  their  political  condition  before 
its  adoption,  under  the  old  Confederation,  directly  con 
trary  to  his  argument  in  the  previous  part  of  this  dis 
cussion. 

"  But  I  intend  not  to  leave  this  important  point,  the 


1833.]         RATIFICATION    OF    THE    CONSTITUTION.  309 

last  refuge  of  those  who  advocate  consolidation,  even 
on  this  conclusive  argument.  I  have  shown  that  the 
Constitution  affords  not  the  least  evidence  of  the  mighty 
change  of  the  political  condition  of  the  states  and  the 
country,  which  the  senator  supposed  it  effected ;  and  I 
intend  now  by  the  most  decisive  proof,  drawn  from  the 
constitutional  instrument  itself,  to  show  that  no  such 
change  was  intended,  and  that  the  people  of  the  states 
are  united  under  it  as  states  and  not  as  individuals. 
On  this  point  there  is  a  very  important  part  of  the  Con 
stitution  entirely  and  strangely  overlooked  by  the  sena 
tor  in  this  debate,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  first  resolu 
tion,  which  furnishes  the  conclusive  evidence,  not  only 
that  the  Constitution  is  a  compact,  but  a  subsisting  com 
pact,  binding  between  the  states.  I  allude  to  the 
seventh  article,  which  provides  that  '  the  ratification  of 
the  convention  of  nine  states  shall  be  sufficient  for  the 
establishment  of  this  Constitution  between  the  states  so 
ratifying  the  same/  Yes,  between  the  states :  these  little 
words  mean  a  volume — compacts,  not  laws,  bind  be 
tween  the  states ;  and  it  here  binds,  not  between  indi 
viduals,  but  between  the  states, — the  states  ratifying, 
— implying,  as  strong  as  language  can  make  it,  that 
the  Constitution  is  what  I  have  asserted  it  to  be — a 
compact,  ratified  by  the  states,  and  a  subsisting  com 
pact,  binding  the  states  ratifying  it. 

"  But,  sir,  I  will  not  leave  this  point,  all-important  in 
establishing  the  true  theory  of  our  government,  on  this 
argument  alone, — demonstrative  and  conclusive  as  I 
hold  it  to  be.  Another  not  much  less  powerful,  but  of 
a  different  character,  may  be  drawn  from  the  tenth 
amended  article,  which  provides  that 'the  powers  nut 


310  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1833. 

delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor 
prohibited  to  it  by  the  states,  are  reserved  to  the  states 
respectively  or  to  the  people/  The  article  of  ratifica 
tion  which  I  have  just  cited  informs  us  that  the  Consti 
tution,  which  delegates  powers,  was  ratified  by  the  states 
and  is  binding  between  them.  This  informs  us  to  whor*. 
the  powers  are  delegated,  a  most  important  fact  in  de 
termining  the  point  immediately  at  issue  between  the 
senator  and  myself.  According  to  his  views,  the  Con 
stitution  created  a  union  between  individuals,  if  the 
solecism  may  be  allowed,  and  that  it  formed,  at  least  to 
the  extent  of  the  powers  delegated,  one  people,  and  not 
a  Federal  Union  of  the  States,  as  I  contend ;  or,  to  ex 
press  the  same  idea  differently,  that  the  delegation  of 
powers  was  to  the  American  people  in  the  aggregate 
(for  it  is  only  by  such  delegation  that  they  could  be 
made  into  one  people),  and  not  to  the  United  States, 
directly  contrary  to  the  article  just  cited,  which  declares 
that  the  powers  are  delegated  to  the  United  States. 
And  here  it  is  worthy  of  notice,  that  the  senator  can 
not  shelter  himself  under  the  ambiguous  phrase  'to  the 
people  of  the  United  Suites/  under  which  he  would  cer 
tainly  have  taken  refuse,  had  the  Constitution  so  ex 
pressed  it ;  but,  fortunately  for  the  cause  of  truth  and 
for  the  great  principles  of  constitutional  liberty  for 
which  lam  contending,  'people'  is  omitted  ;  thus  making 
the  delegation  of  power  clear  and  unequivocal  to  the 
United  Stales,  as  distinct  political  communities,  and 
conclusively  proving  that  all  the  powers  delegated 
ait  reciprocally  delegated  by  the  states  to  each  other, 
as  distinct  political  communities. 

"  So  much  fur  tlie  delegated  powers.     Now,  as  all 


1833.]  THE    CONFEDERATION.  311 

admit,  and  as  it  is  expressly  provided  for  in  the  Consti 
tution,  the  reserved  powers  are  reserved  to  the  states 
respectively,  or  to  the  people,  none  will  pretend  that  as 
far  as  they  are  concerned,  we  are  one  people,  though 
the  argument  to  prove  it,  however  absurd,  would  be  far 
more  plausible  than  that  which  goes  to  show  that  we 
are  one  people  to  the  extent  of  the  delegated  powers. 
This  reservation  '  to  the  people'  might,  in  the  hands  of 
subtle  and  trained  logicians,  be  a  peg  to  hang  a  doubt 
upon  ;  and  had  the  expression  '  to  the  people'  been  con 
nected,  as  fortunately  it  is  not,  with  the  delegated  in 
stead  of  the  reserved  powers,  we  should  not  have  heard 
of  this  in  the  present  discussion.  ****-*.* 

"  If  we  compare  our  present  system  with  the  old  Con 
federation,  which  all  acknowledge  to  have  been,  federal 
in  its  character,  we  shall  find  that  it  possesses  all  the 
attributes  which  belong  to  that  form  of  government  as 
fully  and  completely  as  that  did.  In  fact,  in  this  par 
ticular,  there  is  but  a  single  difference,  and  that  not 
essential,  as  regards  the  point  immediately  under  con 
sideration,  though  very  important  in  other  respects. 
The  confederation  was  the  act  of  the  state  governments, 
and  formed  a  union  of  governments.  The  present 
Constitution  is  the  act  of  the  states  themselves,  or, 
which  is  the  same  thing,  of  the  people  of  the  several 
states,  and  forms  a  union  of  them  as  sovereign  com 
munities.  The  states,  previous  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  were  as  separate  and  distinct  political 
bodies  as  the  governments  which  represent  them,  and 
there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things  to  prevent  them 
from  uniting  under  a  compact,  in  a  federal  union,  with 
out  being  blended  in  one  mass,  any  more  than  uniting 


312  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN. 

the  governments  themselves,  in  like  manner,  without 
merging  them  in  a  single  government.  To  illustrate 
what  I  have  stated  by  reference  to  ordinary  transac 
tions,  the  confederation  was  a  contract  between  agents 
— the  present  Constitution  between  the  principals  them 
selves  ;  or,  to  take  a  more  analogous  case,  one  is  a 
league  made  by  ambassadors ;  the  other,  a  league  made 
by  sovereigns — the  latter  no  more  tending  to  unite  the 
parties  into  a  single  sovereignty  than  the  former.  The 
only  difference  is  in  the  solemnity  of  the  act  and  the 
force  of  the  obligation." 

Rarely  has  such  intellectual  championship  been  wit 
nessed  in  the  halls  of  Congress  as  on  this  memorable 
occasion.  It  was  a  contest  between  giants.  Never 
before  had  the  great  powers  of  Mr.  Calhoun  been  made 
so  clearly  manifest ;  and  the  superiority  of  his  logical 
powers  was  admitted  by  many  who  had  not  hitherto 
been  classed  among  his  admirers.  Mr.  Webster  was 
specious  and  technical ;  Mr.  Calhoun's  argument  pro 
ceeded  link  by  link  till  he  had  formed  a  chain  of  ada 
mant.  The  blows  of  the  former  were  truly  formidable, 
but  they  were  spent  in  great  part  upon  the  air,  while 
every  stroke  from  his  antagonist  drove  the  nail  home. 
Mr.  Webster  argued  like  a  lawyer — Mr.  Calhoun  like  a 
statesman.  The  North  American  Review,  hitherto 
always  known  as  the  firm  and  able  advocate  of  federal 
doctrines,  admitted  that  Mr.  Calhoun  had  successfully 
maintained  the  point  that  the  Constitution  was  a  com 
pact  between  the  states,  and  it  placed  him  where  the 
general  voice  of  the  nation  when  divested  of  party  pre 
judice  placed  him,  in  the  front  rank  of  the  elite  of 
American  statesmen.  Mr.  Webster  himself  tacitly  con- 


1833.]          ANECDOTE  OF  RANDOLPH.  313 

ceded  that  he  was  beaten.  He  never  attempted  to  reply 
to  the  reply  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  but  in  moody  silence  and 
with  frowning  brows  regarded  the  demolition  of  the 
argument  he  had  taken  so  much  pains  to  construct. 

The  eccentric  John  Randolph,  then  in  feeble  health, 
happened  to  be  present  during  this  debate.  He  sat  near 
Mr.  Calhoun  when  the  latter  was  making  his  reply,  but 
a  hat  standing  on  the  seat  before  him,  prevented  him 
from  seeing  Mr.  Webster.  "  Take  away  that  hat/'  he 
exclaimed  ;  "  I  want  to  see  Webster  die,  muscle  by 
muscle." 

The  Force  Bill  passed  the  House  of  Representatives 
on  the  28th  of  February,  and  thus  became  a  law ;  but 
in  the  meantime  everything  had  remained  quiet  in 
South  Carolina.  The  1st  of  February  was  the  day  ap 
pointed  for  the  nullification  ordinance  to  take  effect, 
but  about  that  time  the  leading  State  Rights  men  held 
a  meeting  at  Charleston,  and  adopted  resolutions  agree 
ing  that  no  attempt  should  be  made  to  execute  the  ordi 
nance  till  Congress  adjourned  and  the  State  Conven 
tion  reassembled.*'  In  this  manner  a  collision  between 
the  state  and  national  authorities  was  avoided.  The 
forts  in  the  harbor  of  Charleston  were  strongly  garri 
soned  under  the  orders  of  the  President,  but  the  officer 
charged  with  the  command  in  this  quarter  was  cautious, 
forbearing,  and  discreet. f  Owing  to  his  moderation 
and  prudence,  and  the  display  of  the  same  qualities  by 
the  prominent  nullifiers  and  unionists,  not  a  drop  of 
blood  was  shed. 

Meanwhile,  in  compliance  with  the  clearly  expressed 
wish  of  the  country,  notwithstanding  a  majority  of  the 

*  Niles'  Register,  vol.  xliii.  p.  381.  f  General  Scott. 


314  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833. 

American  people  may  have  at  that  time  disapproved  of 
the  stand  taken  by  South  Carolina,  different  measures 
for  the  reduction  of  the  duties  were  brought  before  Con 
gress.  The  project  presented  by  the  administration 
was  thought  by  the  friends  of  protection  to  contemplate 
too  sudden  a  reduction.  They  became  alarmed,  and 
Mr.  Clay  as  their  organ  prepared  the  well-known  Com 
promise  Act,  under  the  advice  and  with  the  approba 
tion  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  The  latter  did  not  desire  to  see 
the  manufacturers  ruined,  nor  hastily  to  undo  the  bad 
legislation  which  had  given  rise  to  so  many  complaints. 
The  Compromise  Act  was  announced  by  its  author  and 
advocate,  Mr.  Clay,  to  be  designed  for  a  permanent 
tariff  system  which  should  quiet  the  present  agitation, 
and  prevent  a  recurrence  of  similar  evils  in  the  future. 
The  bill  surrendered  the  protective  principle  and  estab 
lished  the  ad  valorem — two  favorite  points  with  Mr. 
Calhoun.  It  also  provided  for  a  general  reduction  of 
the  duties  to  the  revenue  standard.  Mr.  Calhoun  was 
satisfied  with  this,  as  were  all  parties  in  Congress  ex 
cept  the  ultra  friends  of  protection.  The  bill  passed 
both  Houses,  therefore,  by  large  majorities,  and  receiv 
ed  the  signature  of  the  President  on  the  2d  day  of 
March,  1833. 

Congress  adjourned  on  the  3d  instant,  and  Mr.  Cal 
houn  hastened  his  return  home.  Travelling  night  and 
day  by  the  most  rapid  public  conveyances,  he  succeed 
ed  in  reaching  Columbia  in  time  to  meet  the  Conven 
tion  before  they  had  taken  any  additional  steps.  Some 
of  the  more  fiery  and  ardent  members  were  disposed  to 
complain  of  the  Compromise  Act  as  being  only  a  half 
way,  temporizing  measure ;  but  when  his  explanations 


1833.]         TERMINATION    OF    THE    CONTROVERSY.  315 

were  made,  all  felt  satisfied,  and  the  Convention  cor 
dially  approved  of  his  course.  The  nullification  ordi 
nance  was  repealed,  and  the  two  parties  in  the  state 
abandoned  their  organizations,  and  mutually  agreed  to 
forget  all  their  past  differences — a  pledge  which,  to  their 
honor  be  it  said,  was  faithfully  observed. 

Thus  terminated  this  important  controversy,  which 
for  a  time  threatened  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  It  is, 
perhaps,  too  soon  to  form  a  correct  judgment  in  regard 
to  the  events  of  this  conflict  between  State  Rights  and 
Consolidation.  Nullification,  it  has  been  said,  was  "  a 
little  hurricane  while  it  lasted;"  but  it  cooled  the  air, 
and  "  left  a  beneficial  effect  on  the  atmosphere."  Its 
influence  was  decidedly  healthful.  The  nullifiers  cer 
tainly  achieved  a  triumph, — for  they  procured  a  recog 
nition,  not  immediate  but  ultimate,  of  the  correctness 
of  their  doctrines  ;  and  the  result  of  this  great  contest, 
more  than  aught  else,  laid  the  foundation  of  that  appro 
bation  of  the  State  Rights  creed  which  is  now  so  gen 
eral  a  sentiment,  and  paved  the  way  for  the  eventual 
success  of  the  principles  of  Free  Trade. 


CHAPTER  X. 

Removal  of  the  Deposits — Opposition  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  the  Jackson 
Administration — Course  in  Regard  to  the  Bank — Executive  Patron 
age — Reflected  to  the  Senate — Abolition  Excitement — Speech  on 
the  Reception  of  Abolition  Petitions — Admission  of  Michigan — Sep 
aration  of  the  Government  from  the  Banks — Speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun 
— Reply  to  Mr.  Clay. 

ONE  of  the  most  powerful  reasons — and,  perhaps, 
irrespective  of  personal  feelings,  the  controlling  one — 
that  influenced  Mr.  Calhoun  in  taking  a  position  ad 
verse  to  the  administration  of  General  Jackson,  was 
the  favor  at  first  shown  toward  the  protective  policy. 
But  this  important  subject  having  been  disposed  of  for 
the  present  by  the  passage  of  the  Compromise  Bill,  it 
became  a  serious  question  among  politicians,  as  to  what 
would  be  the  future  course  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  The 
friends  of  the  administration  party  claimed  to  represent, 
and  so  far  as  great  and  leading  principles  were  Con 
cerned,  they  did  in  fact  represent,  the  old  Republican 
party  of  which  Jefferson  and  Madison  were  the  found 
ers.  The  opposition  in  turn  insisted  that  they  were 
the  only  true  disciples  of  the  school  to  which  those 
illustrious  statesmen  belonged,  and  they  had  several 
years  previous  assumed  the  name  of  "  National  Repub 
licans."  Had  Mr.  Calhoun  consulted  his  early  predi 
lections,  he  would  undoubtedly  have  waived  all  the 
considerations  personal  to  himself,  on  the  overthrow  of 


1833-34.]  REMOVAL    OF    THE    DEPOSITS.  317 

the  protective  policy,  and  again  united  with  his  Repub 
lican  friends,  not,  it  may  be,  as  a  partisan  of  the  ad 
ministration,  but  as  a  supporter  of  the  principles  of  their 
common  creed. 

But  just  at  this  time  a  new  and  exciting  question  was 
thrown  into  the  sea  of  politics,  now  subsiding  from  its 
troubled  state  to  one  of  calm  and  repose,  and  again  its 
waters  were  agitated  with  the  fury  of  the  tempest.  In 
1832,  the  bill  to  recharter  the  United  States  Bank  was 
vetoed  by  President  Jackson,  and  at  the  ensuing  election 
he  was  again  chosen  the  chief  magistrate  of  the  nation. 
This  decision  of  the  American  people  in  his  favor,  as 
it  was  construed  by  himself  and  his  friends,  embolden 
ed  him  to  urge  forward  measures  which  he  had  prob 
ably  long  had  in  contemplation ;  and  this  he  was  the 
better  able  to  do,  in  consequence  of  the  adjustment  of 
the  tariff  question. 

That  General  Jackson  was  a  firm  patriot — sincerely 
attached  to  the  liberties  and  the  institutions  of  his 
country,  none  can  deny.  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  question 
this,  but  under  the  influence  of  the  personal  animosity 
which  had  been  kindled,  and  the  strong  bias  which  in 
duced  him  to  look  with  disfavor  on  everything  emanat 
ing  from  the  administration,  he  thought  he  saw  an  at 
tempt  on  the  part  of  the  president  to  strengthen  the 
executive  power  and  patronage,  and  to  wield  the  influ 
ence  which  these  gave  him  for  corrupt  purposes.  Much 
as  the  views  of  the  former  may  have  been  colored  by 
prejudice,  he  was  sincere  in  his  convictions,  and  he  was 
more  confirmed  in  them  by  the  removal  of  the  deposits 
from  the  Bank  of  the  United  States  in  the  fall  of  1833, 
by  order  of  President  Jackson. 


318  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833-54 

When  Congress  assembled  in  December  of  that  year, 
this  question  was  the  engrossing  topic  of  discussion, 
and  throughout  the  whole  session  it  was  the  main  sub 
ject  of  debate.  The  friends  of  the  administration  did 
not  deny  that  it  was  a  high-handed  act,  but  they  justi 
fied  it  on  the  score  of  necessity.  They  charged  that 
the  Bank  had  leagued  with  stock  interests  and  politi 
cians  to  control  the  elections ;  that  it  had  spent  large 
sums  of  money  to  that  end  and  to  secure  its  recharter ; 
and  that  it  was  no  longer  a  safe  depository  of  the  pub 
lic  moneys.  These  charges  were  not  then  sustained 
by  such  proof  as  admitted  of  no  question  or  dispute 
though  there  was  much  to  uphold  them,  and  they  were 
afterward  proven  to  be  true  on  the  final  failure  of  the 
Bank,  as  rechartered  by  the  state  of  Pennsylvania. 

Mr.  Calhoun,  therefore,  was  not  satisfied  of  the  truth 
of  the  charges :  he  took  them  as  not  proven  ;  and  be 
lieving  the  removal  of  the  deposits  to  be  inconsistent 
with  the  provisions  of  law  requiring  or  directing  the 
public  funds  to  be  collected,  distributed,  and  kept, 
through  and  by  the  Bank  as  the  fiscal  agent  of  govern 
ment,  he  looked  upon  this  proceeding  as  a  gross  act  of 
executive  usurpation.  This  seemed  to  him  to  be  more 
obvious  because  the  president  had  recommended  the 
removal  at  the  previous  session  of  Congress,  but  that 
body  had  refused  by  a  strong  vote  to  approve  of  his 
recommendation.  It  is  true,  however,  that  a  new 
House  of  Representatives  had  since  been  chosen  who 
were  favorable,  as  the  sequel  showed,  to  the  removal 
of  the  deposits. 

In  December,  1833,  Mr.  Clay  introduced  resolutions 
into  the  Senate  censuring  the  president  in  the  severest 


1833-34.]     OPPOSITION  TO  THE  ADMINISTRATION.     319 

terms,  and  declaring  that  he  had  assumed  authority 
and  power  not  conferred  by  the  Constitution  and  laws, 
but  in  derogation  of  both.  This  resolution,  together 
with  another  condemning  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury 
for  making  the  removal,  received  the  support  of  Mr. 
Calhoun.  Yet  he  was  no  friend  to  the  Bank,  and  in 
an  able  speech  delivered  on  the  13th  of  January,  1834, 
he  declared  that  the  real  question  was  not,  as  was  in 
sisted  by  the  friends  of  the  administration,  "  Bank  or 
no  Bank."  "  Taking  the  deposit  question  in  the  broad 
est  sense,"  he  said ;  "  suppose,  as  it  is  contended  by  the 
friends  of  the  administration,  that  it  involves  the  re 
newal  of  the  charter,  and,  consequently,  the  existence 
of  the  Bank  itself,  still  the  banking  system  would  stand 
almost  untouched  and  unimpaired.  Four  hundred 
banks  would  still  remain  scattered  over  this  wide  re 
public,  and  on  the  ruins  of  the  United  States  Bank 
many  would  rise  to  be  added  to  the  present  list.  Under 
this  aspect  of  the  subject,  the  only  possible  question 
that  would  be  presented  for  consideration  would  be, 
whether  the  banking  system  was  more  safe,  more  bene 
ficial,  or  more  constitutional,  with  or  without  the  United 
States  Bank. 

"If,"  continued  Mr.  Calhoun,  "this  was  a  question  of 
Bank  or  no  Bank — if  it  involved  the  existence  of  the 
banking  system,  it  would,  indeed,  be  a  great  question — 
one  of  the  first  magnitude ;  and,  with  my  present  im 
pression,  long  entertained  and  daily  increasing,  I  would 
hesitate — long  hesitate — before  I  would  be  found  under 
the  banner  of  the  system.  I  have  great  doubts,  if 
doubts  they  may  be  called,  as  to  the  soundness  and 
tendency  of  the  whole  system,  in  all  its  modifications. 


320  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1833-34. 

I  have  great  fears  that  it  will  be  found  hostile  to  liberty 
and  the  advance  of  civilization — fatally  hostile  to  lib 
erty  in  our  country,  where  the  system  exists  in  its 
worst  and  most  dangerous  form.  Of  all  institutions 
affecting  the  great  question  of  the  distribution  of  wealth 
— a  question  least  explored,  and  the  most  important  of 
any  in  the  whole  range  of  political  economy — the 
banking  institution  has,  if  not  the  greatest,  one  of  the 
greatest,  and,  I  fear,  most  pernicious  influence  on  the 
mode  of  distribution.  Were  the  question  really  before 
us,  I  would  not  shun  the  responsibility,  as  great  as  it 
might  be,  of  freely  and  fully  offering  my  sentiments  on 
these  deeply-important  points ;  but  as  it  is,  I  must  content 
myself  with  the  few  remarks  which  I  have  thrown  out." 
It  will  be  seen  from  the  foregoing  remarks  that  Mr. 
Calhoun's  matured  opinions  were  decidedly  adverse  to 
a  national  bank.  He  regarded  such  an  institution  as 
an  engine  of  consolidation,  to  be  tolerated  only  for  the 
time  as  a  means  of  regulating  the  currency,  which 
consisted  mainly  of  bank  paper  receivable  for  govern 
ment  dues ;  for  so  long  as  that  was  so  receivable,  he 
held  that  government  was  bound  to  regulate  it.  Upon 
the  removal  of  the  deposits,  they  had  been  confided  to 
the  custody  of  a  number  of  banks  selected  in  different 
parts  of  the  country  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 
The  true  question  then,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  thought,  was 
not  in  regard  to  a  national  bank,  but  whether  a  league 
of  selected  banks  should  be  substituted  for  a  single  in 
stitution,  and  he  decidedly  preferred  one  to  one  hun 
dred.  He  also  argued  that  the  president  had  in  fact 
created  an  immense  bank,  and  would  thereby  control 
the  currency  of  the  country. 


1834.)  POSITION    IN    REGARD    TO    THE    BANK.          321 

"  What,  then,"  said  he,  "  is  the  real  question  which  now 
agitates  the  country  ?  I  answer,  it  is  a  struggle  between 
the  executive  and  legislative  departments  of  the  govern 
ment  ;  a  struggle,  not  in  relation  to  the  existence  of  the 
Bank,  but  whether  Congress  or  the  President  should  have 
the  power  to  create  a  bank,  and,  through  it,  the  conse 
quent  control  over  the  currency  of  the  country.  This  is 
the  real  question.  Let  us  not  deceive  ourselves.  This 
league,  this  association,  vivified  and  sustained  by  receiv 
ing  the  deposits  of  the  public  money,  and  having  their 
notes  converted,  by  being  received  everywhere  by  the 
treasury,  into  the  common  currency  of  the  country,  is, 
to  all  intents  and  purposes,  a  bank  of  the  United  States 
— the  executive  bank  of  the  United  States,  as  distin 
guished  from  that  of  Congress,  However  it  might  fail 
to  perform  satisfactorily  the  useful  functions  of  the 
Bank  of  the  United  States,  as  incorporated  by  law,  it 
would  outstrip  it — far  outstrip  it — in  all  its  dangerous 
qualities,  in  extending  the  power,  the  influence,  and  the 
corruption  of  the  government.  It  was  impossible  to 
conceive  any  institution  more  admirably  calculated  to 
advance  these  objects.  Not  only  the  selected  banks, 
but  the  whole  banking  institutions  of  the  country,  and 
with  it  the  entire  money  power,  for  the  purpose  of 
speculation,  peculation,  and  corruption,  would  be  placed 
under  the  control  of  the  executive.  A  system  of  men 
aces  and  promises  will  be  established :  of  menace  tc 
the  banks  in  possession  of  the  deposits,  but  which 
might  not  be  entirely  subservient  to  executive  views, 
and  of  promise  of  future  favors  to  those  who  may  not 
as  yet  enjoy  its  favors.  Between  the  two,  the  banks 
would  be  left  without  honor  or  honesty,  and  a  system 

14* 


322  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

of  speculation  and  stock-jobbing  would  commence,  un 
equalled  in  the  annals  of  our  country." 

At  this  early  period,  had  he  been  left  free  to  act,  by 
the  condition  of  the  country  and  the  state  of  the  cur 
rency,  as  his  judgment  dictated,  he  would  have  favored 
an  entire  separation  of  the  government  from  the  banks 
— a  measure  afterward  proposed  under  the  name  of 
the  Independent  Treasury.  Nay,  at  this  very  time  a 
proposition  of  that  character  was  brought  forward  by 
General  Gordon,  a  member  of  the  House  and  a  State 
Rights  man,  after  a  consultation  with  Mr.  Calhoun  and 
other  friends,  but  it  did  not  receive  a  favorable  vote. 
The  views  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  however,  were  presented 
with  great  distinctness  in  his  speech.  "  So  long,"  he 
remarked,  "  as  the  question  is  one  between  a  bank  of 
the  United  States,  incorporated  by  Congress,  and  that 
system  of  banks  which  has  been  created  by  the  will  of 
the  executive,  it  is  an  insult  to  the  understanding  to 
discourse  on  the  pernicious  tendency  and  unconstitu 
tionally  of  the  Bank  of  the  United  States.  To  bring 
up  that  question  fairly  and  legitimately,  you  must  go 
one  step  further  :  you  must  divorce  the  government  and 
the  bank.  You  must  refuse  all  connection  with  banks. 
You  must  neither  receive,  nor  pay  away  bank-notes  ; 
you  must  go  back  to  the  old  system  of  the  strong  box, 
and  of  gold  and  silver.  If  you  have  a  right  to  receive 
bank-notes  at  all — to  treat  them  as  money  by  receiving 
them  in  your  dues,  or  paying  them  away  to  creditors, 
you  have  a  right  to  create  a  bank.  Whatever  the 
government  receives  and  treats  as  money,  is  money  in 
effect ;  and  if  it  be  money,  then  they  have  the  right, 
under  the  Constitution,  to  regulate  it.  Nay,  they  are 


1837.]     SEPARATION  OF  BANK  AND  STATE.        323 

bound  by  high  obligation  to  adopt  the  most  efficient 
means,  according  to  the  nature  of  that  which  they 
have  recognized  as  money,  to  give  it  the  utmost  stabil 
ity  and  uniformity  of  value.  And  if  it  be  in  the  shape 
of  bank-notes,  the  most  efficient  means  of  giving  those 
qualities  is  a  Bank  of  the  United  States,  incorporated 
by  Congress.  Unless  you  give  the  highest  practical 
uniformity  to  the  value  of  bank-notes — so  long  as  you 
receive  them  in  your  dues,  and  treat  them  as  money, 
you  violate  that  provision  of  the  Constitution  which 
provides  that  taxation  shall  be  uniform  throughout  the 
United  States.  There  is  no  other  alternative,  I  repeat ; 
you  must  divorce  the  government  entirely  from  the 
banking  system,  or,  if  not,  you  are  bound  to  incorpo 
rate  a  bank,  as  the  only  safe  and  efficient  means  of  giv 
ing  stability  and  uniformity  to  the  currency.  And 
should  the  deposits  not  be  restored,  and  the  present 
illegal  and  unconstitutional  connection  between  the  ex 
ecutive  and  the  league  of  banks  continue,  I  shall  feel 
it  my  duty,  if  no  one  else  moves,  to  introduce  a  meas 
ure  to  prohibit  government  from  receiving  or  touching 
bank-notes  in  any  shape  whatever,  as  the  only  means 
left  of  giving  safety  and  stability  to  the  currency,  and 
saving  the  country  from  corruption  and  ruin.'"' 

But  Mr.  Calhoun  also  saw  and  pointed  out  what  he 
thought  to  be  the  true  cause  of  the  removal  of  the 
deposits.  He  attributed  it  to  the  desire  of  the  executive 
to  control  the  immense  surplus  revenue  which  had 
accumulated  under  the  high  tariff  system  for  political 
purposes ;  and  he  did  not  hesitate  to  condemn  the 
legislation  which  had  superinduced  this  state  of  things. 
"  What,"  he  asked,  "  is  the  cause  of  the  present  usurpa- 


324  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

tion  of  power  on  the  part  of  the  executive  ?  what  the 
motive  ?  the  temptation  which  has  induced  it  to  seize 
on  the  deposits  ?  What,  but  the  large  surplus  revenue  ? 
the  eight  or  ten  millions  in  the  public  treasury  beyond 
the  wants  of  the  government  ?  And  what  has  put  so 
large  an  amount  of  money  in  the  treasury  when  not 
needed  ?  I  answer,  the  protective  system  :  that  system 
which  graduated  the  duties,  not  in  reference  to  the 
wants  of  the  government,  but  in  reference  to  the 
importunities  and  demands  of  the  manufacturers,  and 
which  poured  millions  of  dollars  into  the  treasury 
beyond  the  most  profuse  demands  and  even  the  extrava 
gance  of  the  government — taken — unlawfully  taken — 
from  the  pockets  of  those  who  honestly  made  it.  I  hold 
that  those  who  make  are  entitled  to  what  they  make 
against  all  the  world  except  the  government,  and  against 
it  except  to  the  extent  of  its  legitimate  and  constitu 
tional  wants ;  and  that  for  the  government  to  take  one 
cent  more  is  robbery.  In  violation  of  this  sacred  prin 
ciple,  Congress  first  removed  the  money  by  high 
duties,  unjustly  and  unconstitutionally  imposed,  from 
the  pockets  of  those  who  made  it,  where  it  was  right 
fully  placed  by  all  laws,  human  and  divine,  into  the 
treasury.  The  executive,  in  his  turn,  following  the 
example,  has  taken  them  from  that  deposit,  and  dis 
tributed  them  among  favorite  and  partisan  banks.  The 
means  used  have  been  the  same  in  both  cases.  The 
Constitution  gives  to  Congress  the  power  to  lay  duties, 
with  a  view  to  revenue.  This  power,  without  regard 
ing  the  object  for  which  it  was  intended,  forgetting  that 
it  was  a  great  trust  power,  necessarily  limited,  by  the 
very  nature  of  such  powers,  to  the  subject  and  the 


1837.]     SEPARATION  OF  BANK  AND  STATE.        325 

object  of  the  trust,  was  perverted  to  a  use  never  intend 
ed,  that  of  protecting  the  industry  of  one  portion  of 
the  country  at  the  expense  of  another ;  and,  under  this 
false  interpretation,  the  money  was  transferred  from 
its  natural  and  just  deposit,  the  pockets  of  those  who 
made  it,  into  the  public  treasury,  as  I  have  stated.  In 
this,  too,  the  executive  followed  the  example  of  Con 
gress.  By  the  magic  construction  of  a  few  simple 
words — '  unless  otherwise  ordered' — intended  to  confer 
on  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  a  limited  power — to 
give  additional  security  to  the  public  deposits,  he  has, 
in  like  manner,  perverted  this  power,  and  made  it  the 
instrument,  by  similar  sophistry,  of  drawing  the  money 
from  the  treasury,  and  bestowing  it,  as  I  have  stated,  on 
favorite  and  partisan  banks.  Would  to  God,  said  Mr. 
C.,  would  to  God  I  could  reverse  the  whole  of  this 
nefarious  operation,  and  terminate  the  controversy  by 
returning  the  money  to  the  pockets  of  the  honest  and 
industrious  citizens,  by  the  sweat  of  whose  brows  it 
was  made,  with  whom  only  it  can  be  rightfully  deposi 
ted.  But  as  this  cannot  be  done,  I  must  content  myself 
by  giving  a  vote  to  return  it  to  the  public  treasury, 
where  it  was  ordered  to  be  deposited  by  an  act  of  the 
Legislature." 

Entertaining  these  views,  it  will  not  appear  at  all 
inconsistent  in  Mr.  Calhoun,  that  he  favored  a  proposi 
tion  to  re-charter  the  United  States  Bank  at  this  session. 
In  a  speech  upon  a  proposition  made  by  Mr.  Webster 
to  renew  the  charter  of  the  Bank  for  six  years,  he  re 
viewed  the  whole  question  of  the  currency,  showed  its 
unsoundness,  and  proposed  to  continue  the  bank  for 
twelve  years,  in  order,  as  he  said,  to  "  unbank  the 


326  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1834-35 

banks," — or  in  other  words  to  restore  a  sound  currency, 
and  then  to  do  away  with  the  pernicious  banking  sys 
tem,  at  least  so  far  as  it  had  any  connection  with  the 
general  government. 

Having  approved  of  the  resolutions  condemning  the 
removal  of  the  deposits,  Mr.  Calhoun  was  also  totally 
opposed  to  the  reception  of  the  protest  of  President 
Jackson.  He  repeatedly  declared,  however,  that  he 
was  unconnected  with  either  party,  and  when  the 
opposition  assumed  the  name  of  "  whigs"  in  the  winter 
of  1834,  he  expressly  disclaimed,  in  his  place  in  the 
Senate,  all  title  to  the  appellation  on  the  part  of  himself 
and  his  State  Rights  friends.  He  was  a  State  Rights 
man,  he  said  ;  he  wished  to  be  nothing  more,  and  would 
be  content  with  nothing  less.  At  the  session  of  1833-34, 
he  supporte.d  the  bill  raising  the  relative  value  of  gold 
compared  with  silver  commonly  called  the  "Gold  Bill," 
and  the  bill  to  establish  branch  mints,  both  of  which 
were  favorite  measures  of  the  administration.  These 
he  voted  for,  because  they  were  calculated  to  aid  in 
securing  the  great  end  he  hoped  to  accomplish — the 
restoration  of  a  sound  currency.  Consistency  with  his 
cherished  principles  required  this  course,  and  where 
these  were  at  stake  he  never  hesitated  to  come  to  thei/r 
defence. 

Yet  upon  minor  questions  he  usually  acted  with  the 
opposition.  He  utterly  repudiated  the  idea  of  any  alli 
ance  with  them,  but  as  he  had  been  attacked,  sometimes 
far  too  grossly,  in  the  administration  prints,  he  voted 
for  the  most  part  with  the  opposition  members  upon 
appointments  and  the  election  of  committees  and  officers. 

The  vast  surplus  revenue  which  had  accumulated 


1 834-35. J  EXECUTIVE    PATRONAGE.  327 

was  a  constant  source  of  apprehension  to  him.  He 
feared  the  power  which  it  would  give  to  the  president, 
and  at  the  session  of  1834-35,  a  special  committee  of 
nine  members  was  raised,  on  his  motion,  in  order  to 
inquire  into  the  extent  of  the  executive  patronage,  and 
the  expediency  and  practicability  of  reducing  it.  He 
was  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  and  made  an  able 
report,  showing  the  great  danger  to  be  apprehended 
from  the  surplus,  which  he  estimated  to  be  nine  millions 
of  dollars  annually.  All  parties  now  saw  the  fearful 
evil  occasioned  by  the  gradual  but  slow  reduction  of 
the  high  duties,  and  the  enormous  sales  of  the  public 
lands  which  took  place  during  that  speculating  era. 
The  surplus  on  deposit  with  the  banks  furnished  vast 
facilities  for  business  operations,  whether  mere  specula 
tive  or  otherwise,  and  the  volume  of  the  currency  was 
being  rapidly  expanded.  As  a  remedy  for  the  evil,  the 
administration  proposed  either  to  absorb  the  surplus  by 
expenditures  for  military  defences  or  other  works  of 
general  welfare,  or,  in  the  second  place,  to  vest  it  in 
government  stocks.  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  approve  of 
either  measure,  because,  as  he  thought,  that  the  first 
would  increase  the  executive  patronage,  and  pave  the 
way  for  excessive  expenditures,  for  which  another  high 
tariff  would  eventually  be  required  ;  and  that  the  second 
would  entangle  the  government  with  state  stocks. 

He  therefore  favored  the  proposition  to  regulate  the 
deposits  with  the  banks,  and  to  deposit  the  surplus  with 
the  states.  A  bill  making  provision  for  this  regulation 
of  the  deposit  banks,  and  the  disposition  of  the  surplus, 
passed  Congress  in  June,  1836,  which  received  his  vote, 
and  under  the  circumstances,  his  entire  approval  He 


328  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1836-37. 

would  gladly  have  favored  any  feasible  project  to 
restore  the  money  to  the  people  who  had  been  taxed  to 
this  extent,  but  he  saw  this  was  impossible,  and  there 
fore  supported  the  deposit  measure  as  the  only  alterna 
tive. 

The  term  of  service  for  which  Mr.  Calhoun  had  been 
originally  chosen  expired  in  March,  1835,  but  at  the 
session  of  the  legislature  previous,  he  was  chosen  for  a 
second  term  by  a  large  and  flattering  vote.  South 
Carolina  placed  too  high  an  estimate  on  his  past  services 
to  part  with  them  so  soon,  and  he  was  too  warmly 
attached  to  her  to  desire  to  be  released  from  his  position. 

At  the  session  of  1835-36,  Mr.  Calhoun  voted  against 
the  favorite  measure  of  Mr.  Clay,  to  distribute  the  pro 
ceeds  of  the  public  lands  among  the  states,  as  he  never 
failed  to  do  when  this  question  was  presented,  in  what 
soever  shape  or  form  it  assumed. 

During  this  session,  also,  another  important  question 
occupied  Mi\  Calhoun's  attention.  This  was  the  sub 
ject  of  the  reception  of  abolition  petitions.  Societies 
had  been  organized  in  the  northern  and  middle  states 
for  the  avowed  purpose  of  procuring  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  with  the  intention 
doubtless  of  effecting  the  sume  thing  ultimately  in  the 
southern  states.  Presses  were  purchased,  and  news 
papers  and  pamphlets  issued,  teeming  with  the  foulest 
abuse  and  the  most  calumnious  and  unfounded  accusa 
tions — all  directed  against  the  owners  of  slaves.  Peti 
tions  of  the  same  character  with  the  newspapers  and 
pamphlets  were  also  put  in  circulation,  signed,  and 
forwarded  to  Washington  for  presentation  ia  one  oar 
ether  of  the  two  Houses  of  Congress, 


1836-37.]  ABOLITIONISM.  329 

Viewing  these  fanatical  efforts, — however  well  in- 
tentioned  might  be  the  motives  of  those  concerned  in 
them  who  acted  from  what  he  deemed  considerations 
of  false  philanthropy  and  benevolence, — as  being  de 
cidedly  dangerous  in  their  tendency  as  respected  the 
peace  and  security  of  the  slave-holding  states,  he 
resisted  them  at  the  outset.  He  was  always  in  favor, 
as  he  expressed  it,  of  meeting  "  the  enemy  on  the  fron 
tier."  In  February,  1836,  he  made  an  able  report  from 
a  select  committee  appointed  to  consider  that  portion 
of  the  president's  message  recommending  the  adoption 
of  efficient  measures  to  prevent  the  circulation  of 
incendiary  publications  or  abolition  petitions,  pamphlets, 
&c.,  through  the  mails.  This  report  was  accompanied 
by  a  bill,  which  he  supported  in  an  earnest  and  power 
ful  speech  delivered  on  the  twelfth  of  April,  1836.*  A 
difficulty  now  arose  upon  this  question.  The  northern 
Whigs  were  in  great  part  inclined  to  favor  the  abolition 
ists,  and  the  Republicans  were  the  reverse;  but  both 
parties  in  Congress  thought  it  would  be  advisable  not  to 
reject  the  petitions  on  the  subject  of  abolitionism.  The 
Republican  members  especially,  were  apprehensive  that 
the  rejection  would  be  regarded  by  their  constituents 
as  a  denial  of  the  right  of  petition,  and  this  would  raise 
a  new  issue  that  might  injure  them  as  a  party.  Mr. 
Calhoun  earnestly  combated  this  idea,  and  in  February, 
1837,  he  delivered  another  speech  on  the  subject  of  the  re 
ception  of  abolition  petitions,  in  which  he  explained  their 
incendiary  character,  and  pointed  out  the  offensive  and 
insulting  language  used  toward  the  slaveholding  states. 

*  The  bill  was  ordered  to  a  third  reading  by  the  casting  vote  of  the 
vice-pr  esident  (Mr.  Van  Buren),  but  did  not  finally,  become  a  law. 


330  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 


SPEECH  ON  THE  RECEPTION  OF  ABOLITION  PETITIONS. 

If  the  time  of  the  Senate  permitted,  I  should  feel  it  to  be  my  duty  to 
call  for  the  reading  of  the  mass  of  petitions  on  the  table,  in  order  that  we 
might  know  what  language  they  hold  towards  the  slave-holding  states 
and  their  institutions  ;  but  as  it  will  not,  I  have  selected  indiscriminate 
ly  from  the  pile,  two :  one  from  those  in  manuscript,  and  the  other  from 
the  printed  ;  and,  without  knowing  their  contents,  will  call  for  the  read 
ing  of  them,  so  that  we  may  judge,  by  them,  of  the  character  of  the 
whole. 

(Here  the  Secretary,  on  the  call  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  read  the  two  petitions.) 

Such,  (resumed  Mr.  C.,)  is  the  language  held  towards  us  and  ours ; 
the  peculiar  institution  of  the  South,  that  on  the  maintenance  of  which 
the  very  existence  of  the  s]aveholding  states  depends,  is  pronounced  to 
be  sinful  and  odious,  in  the  sight  of  God  and  man ;  and  this  with  a  sys 
tematic  design  of  rendering  us  hateful  in  the  eyes  of  the  world,  with  a 
view  to  a  general  crusade  against  us  and  our  institutions.  This,  too,  in 
the  legislative  halls  of  the  Union,  created  by  these  confederated  states 
for  the  better  protection  of  their  peace,  their  safety,  and  their  respective 
institutions ;  and  yet  we,  the  representatives  of  twelve  of  these  sove 
reign  states  against  whom  this  deadly  war  is  waged,  are  expected  to 
sit  here  in  silence,  hearing  ourselves  and  our  constituents  day  after  day 
denounced,  without  uttering  a  word  ;  if  we  but  open  our  lips,  the  charge 
of  agitation  is  resounded  on  all  sides,  and  we  are  held  up  as  seeking  to 
aggravate  the  evil  wrhich  we  resist.  Every  reflecting  mind  must  see  in 
all  this  a  state  of  things  deeply  and  dangerously  diseased. 

I  do  not  belong,  said  Mr.  C.,  to  the  school  which  holds  that  aggression 
is  to  be  met  by  concession.  Mine  is  the  opposite  creed,  which  teaches 
that  encroachments  must  be  met  at  the  beginning,  and  that  those  who 
act  on  the  opposite  principle  are  prepared  to  become  slaves.  In  this 
case,  in  particular,  I  hold  concession  or  compromise  to  be  fatal.  If  we 
concede  an  inch,  concession  would  follow  concession — compromise  would 
follow  compromise,  until  our  ranks  would  be  so  broken  that  effectual 
resistance  would  be  impossible.  We  must  meet  the  enemy  on  the  fron 
tier,  with  a  fixed  determination  of  maintaining  our  position  at  every 
hazard.  Consent  to  receive  these  insulting  petitions,  and  the  next  de 
mand  will  be  that  they  be  referred  to  a  committee,  in  order  that  they 
may  be  deliberated  and  acted  upon.  At  the  last  session,  we  were 


1837.]  SPEECH    ON    ABOLITION    PETITIONS.  331 

modestly  asked  to  receive  them  simply  to  lay  them  on  the  table,  without 
any  view  of  ulterior  action.  I  then  told  the  senator  from  Pennsylvania 
(Mr.  Buchanan),  who  strongly  urged  that  course  in  the  Senate,  that  it 
was  a  position  that  could  not  be  maintained ;  as  the  argument  in  favor  of 
acting  on  the  petitions,  if  we  were  bound  to  receive,  could  not  be  resisted. 
I  then  said  that  the  next  step  would  be  to  refer  the  petition  to  a 
committee,  and  I  already  see  indications  that  such  is  now  the  intention. 
If  we  yield,  that  will  be  followed  by  another,  and  we  would  thus  pro 
ceed,  step  by  step,  to  the  final  consummation  of  the  object  of  these  peti 
tions.  We  are  now  told  that  the  most  effectual  mode  of  arresting  the 
progress  of  abolition  is  to  reason  it  down  :  and  with  this  view,  it  is  urged 
that  the  petitions  ought  to  be  referred  to  a  committee.  That  is  the  very 
ground  which  was  taken  at  the  last  session  in  the  other  house  ;  but,  in 
stead  of  arresting  its  progress,  it  has  since  advanced  more  rapidly  than 
ever.  The  most  unquestionable  right  may  be  rendered  doubtful  if  once 
admitted  to  be  a  subject  of  controversy,  and  that  would  be  the  case  in 
the  present  instance.  The  subject  is  beyond  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress 
— they  have  no  right  to  touch  it  in  any  shape  or  form,  or  to  make  it  the 
subject  of  deliberation  or  discussion. 

In  opposition  to  this  view,  it  is  urged  that  Congress  is  bound  by  the 
Constitution  to  receive  petitions  in  every  case  and  on  every  subject, 
whether  within  its  constitutional  competency  or  not.  I  hold  the  doctrine 
to  be  absurd,  and  do  solemnly  believe  that  it  would  be  as  easy  to  prove 
that  it  has  the  right  to  abolish  slavery,  as  that  it  is  bound  to  receive 
petitions  for  that  purpose.  The  very  existence  of  the  rule  that  requires 
a  question  to  be  put  on  the  reception  of  petitions,  is  conclusive  to  show 
that  there  is  no  such  obligation.  It  has  been  a  standing  rule  from  the 
commencement  of  the  government,  and  clearly  shows  the  sense  of  those 
who  formed  the  Constitution  on  this  point.  The  question  on  the  recep 
tion  would  be  absurd,  if,  as  is  contended,  we  are  bound  to  receive  :  but 
I  do  not  intend  to  argue  the  question ;  I  discussed  it  fully  at  the  last 
session,  and  the  arguments  then  advanced  neither  have  nor  can  be  an 
swered. 

As  widely  as  this  incendiary  spirit  has  spread,  it  has  not  yet  infected 
this  body,  or  the  great  mass  of  the  intelligent  and  business  portion  of 
the  North ;  but  unless  it  be  speedily  stopped,  it  will  spread  and  work 
upward  till  it  brings  the  two  great  sections  of  the  Union  into  deadly 
conflict.  This  is  not  a  new  impression  with  me.  Several  years  since, 
in  a  discussion  with  one  of  the  senators  from  Massachusetts  (Mr. 


332  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

Webster),  before  this  fell  spirit  had  showed  itself,  I  then  predicted  that 
the  doctrine  of  the  proclamation  and  the  force  bill — that  this  govern 
ment  had  a  right,  in  the  last  resort,  to  determine  the  extent  of  its  own 
powers,  and  enforce  it  at  the  point  of  the  bayonet,  which  was  so  warmly 
maintained  by  that  senator — would  at  no  distant  day  arouse  the  dor 
mant  spirit  of  Abolitionism  ;  I  told  him  that  the  doctrine  was  tantamount 
to  the  assumption  of  unlimited  power  on  the  part  of  the  government, 
and  that  such  would  be  the  impression  on  the  public  mind  in  a  large 
portion  of  the  Union.  The  consequence  would  be  inevitable — a  large 
portion  of  the  Northern  States  believed  slavery  to  be  a  sin,  and  would 
believe  it  to  be  an  obligation  of  conscience  to  abolish  it,  if  they  should 
feel  themselves  in  any  degree  responsible  for  its  continuance,  and  that 
his  doctrine  would  necessarily  lead  to  the  belief  of  such  responsibility. 
I  then  predicted  that  it  would  commence,  as  it  has,  with  this  fanatical 
portion  of  society ;  and  that  they  would  begin  their  operation  on  the 
ignorant,  the  weak,  the  young,  and  the  thoughtless,  and  wTould  gradually 
extend  upward  till  they  became  strong  enough  to  obtain  political  con 
trol,  when  he,  and  others  holding  the  highest  stations  in  society,  would, 
however  reluctant,  be  compelled  to  yield  to  their  doctrine,  or  be  driven 
into  obscurity.  But  four  years  have  since  elapsed,  and  all  this  is  already 
in  a  course  of  regular  fulfilment. 

Standing  at  the  point  of  time  at  which  we  have  now  arrived,  it  will 
not  be  more  difficult  to  trace  the  course  of  future  events  now  than  it 
was  then.  Those  who  imagine  that  the  spirit  now  abroad  in  the  North 
will  die  away  of  itself-without  a  shock  or  convulsion,  have  formed  a 
very  inadequate  conception  of  its  real  character ;  it  will  continue  to  rise 
and  spread,  unless  prompt  and  efficient  measures  to  stay  its  progress  be 
adopted.  Already  it  has  taken  possession  of  the  pulpit,  of  the  schools, 
and,  to  a  considerable  extent,  of  the  press  ;  those  great  instruments  by 
which  the  mind  of  the  rising  generation  will  be  formed. 

However  sound  the  great  body  of  the  non-slaveholding  states  are  at 
present,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years  they  will  be  succeeded  by  those 
who  have  been  taught  to  hate  the  people  and  institutions  of  nearly  one 
half  of  this  Union,  with  a  hatred  more  deadly  than  one  hostile  nation 
ever  entertained  towards  another.  It  is  easy  to  see  the  end.  By  the 
necessary  course  of  events,  if  left  to  themselves,  we  must  become,  finally, 
two  people.  It  is  impossible,  under  the  deadly  hatred  which  must 
spring  up  between  the  two  great  sections,  if  the  present  causes  are  per 
mitted  to  operate  unchecked,  that  we  should  continue  under  the  same 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNENT  FROM  BANKS.          333 

political  system.  The  conflicting  elements  would  burst  the  Union 
asunder,  as  powerful  as  are  the  links  which  hold  it  together.  Abolition 
and  the  Union  cannot  coexist.  As  the  friend  of  the  Union,  I  openly 
proclaim  it,  and  the  sooner  it  is  known  the  better.  The  former  may 
now  be  controlled,  but  in  a  short  time  it  will  be  beyond  the  power  of 
man  to  arrest  the  course  of  events.  We  of  the  South  will  not,  cannot 
.surrender  our  institutions.  To  maintain  the  existing  relations  between 
the  two  races  inhabiting  that  section  of  the  Union  is  indispensable  to 
the  peace  and  happiness  of  both.  It  cannot  be  subverted  without 
drenching  the  country  in  blood,  and  extirpating  one  or  other  of  the 
races.  Be  it  good  or  bad,  it  has  grown  up  with  our  societies  and  insti 
tutions,  and  is  so  interwoven  with  them  that  to  destroy  it  would  be  to 
destroy  us  as  a  people.  But  let  me  not  be  understood  as  admitting, 
even  by  implication,  that  the  existing  relations  between  the  two  races, 
in  the  slaveholding  states,  is  an  evil :  far  otherwise  ;  I  hold  it  to  be  a 
good,  as  it  has  thus  far  proven  itself  to  be,  to  both,  and  will  continue  to 
prove  so,  if  not  disturbed  by  the  fell  spirit  of  abolition.  I  appeal  to 
facts.  I  Never  before  has  the  black  race  of  Central  Africa,  from  the 
dawn  of  history  to  the  present  day,  attained  a  condition  so  civilized  and 
so  improved,  not  only  physically,  but  morally  and  intellectually.  It 
came  among  us  in  a  low,  degraded,  and  savage  condition,  and,  in  the 
course  of  a  few  generations,  it  has  grown  up  under  the  fostering  care  of 
our  institutions,  as  reviled  as  they  have  been,  to  its  present  compara 
tive  civilized  condition.  This,  with  the  rapid  increase  of  numbers,  is 
conclusive  proof  of  the  general  happiness  of  the  race,  in  spite  of  all  the 
exaggerated  tales  to  the  contrary. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  white  or  European  race  has  not  degenerated. 
It  has  kept  pace  with  its  brethren,  in  other  sections  of  the  Union  where 
slavery  does  not  exist.  It  is  odious  to  make  comparison ;  but  I  appeal 
to  all  sides  whether  the  South  is  not  equal  in  virtue,  intelligence,  pa 
triotism,  courage,  disinterestedness,  and  all  the  high  qualities  which 
adorn  our  nature.  I  ask  whether  we  have  not  contributed  our  full 
share  of  talents  and  political  wisdom  in  forming  and  sustaining  this 
political  fabric:  and  whether  we  have  not  constantly  inclined  most 
strongly  to  the  side  of  liberty,  and  been  the  first  to  see,  and  first  to 
resist,  the  encroachments  of  power.  In  one  thing  only  are  we  inferior 
— the  arts  of  gain ;  we  acknowledge  that  we  are  less  wealthy  than  the 
Northern  section  of  this  Union,  but  I  trace  this  mainly  to  the  fiscal 
action  of  this  government,  which  has  extracted  much  from,  and  spent 


334  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

little  among  us.  Had  it  been  the  reverse — if  the  exaction  had  been 
from  the  other  section,  and  the  expenditure  with  us — this  point  of  su 
periority  would  not  be  against  us  now,  as  it  was  not  at  the  formation  of 
this  government. 

But  I  take  higher  ground.  I  hold  that,  in  the  present  state  of  civili 
zation,  where  two  races  of  different  origin,  and  distinguished  by  color, 
and  other  physical  differences,  as  well  as  intellectual,  are  brought  to 
gether,  the  relation  now  existing  in  the  slaveholding  states  between  the 
two  is,  instead  of  an  evil,  a  good — a  positive  good.  I  feel  myself  called 
upon  to  speak  freely  upon  the  subject,  where  the  honor  and  interests 
of  those  I  represent  are  involved.  I  hold,  then,  that  there  never  has 
yet  existed  a  wealthy  and  civilized  society  in  which  one  portion  of  the 
community  did  not,  in  point  of  fact,  live  on  the  labor  of  the  other. 
Broad  and  general  as  is  this  assertion,  it  is  fully  borne  out  by  history. 
This  is  not  the  proper  occasion,  but  if  it  were,  it  would  not  be  difficult 
to  trace  the  various  devices  by  which  the  wealth  of  all  civilized  com 
munities  has  been  so  unequally  divided,  and  to  show  by  what  means 
so  small  a  share  has  been  allotted  to  those  by  whose  labor  it  was  pro 
duced,  and  so  large  a  share  given  to  the  non-producing  class.  The  de 
vices  are  almost  innumerable,  from  the  brute  force  and  gross  supersti 
tion  of  ancient  times,  to  the  subtle  and  artful  fiscal  contrivances  of  mod 
ern.  I  might  well  challenge  a  comparison  between  them  and  the 
more  direct,  simple,  and  patriarchal  mode  by  which  the  labor  of  the 
African  race  is  among  us  commanded  by  the  European.  I  may  say, 
with  truth,  that  in  few  countries  so  much  is  left  to  the  share  of  the 
laborer,  and  so  little  exacted  from  him,  or  where  there  is  more  kind 
attention  to  him  in  sickness  or  infirmities  of  age.  Compare  his  condi 
tion  with  the  tenants  of  the  poor-houses  in  the  most  civilized  portions 
of  Europe — look  at  the  sick,  and  the  old  and  infirm  slave,  on  the  one 
hand,  in  the  midst  of  his  family  and  friends,  under  the  kind  superintend 
ing  care  of  his  master  and  mistress,  and  compare  it  with  the  forlorn 
and  wretched  condition  of  the  pauper  in  the  poor-house.  But  I  will 
not  dwell  on  this  aspect  of  the  question :  I  turn  to  the  political ;  and 
here  I  fearlessly  assert,  that  the  existing  relation  between  the  two  races 
in  the  South,  against  which  these  blind  fanatics  are  waging  war,  forms 
the  most  solid  and  durable  foundation  on  which  to  rear  free  and  stable 
political  institutions.  It  is  useless  to  disguise  the  fact.  There  is,  and 
always  has  been,  in  an  advanced  stage  of  wealth  and  civilization,  a 
conflict  between  labor  and  capital.  The  condition  of  society  in  the 


1837."]  SPEECH    ON    ABOLITION    PETITIONS.  335 

South  exempts  us  from  the  disorders  and  dangers  resulting  from  this 
conflict ;  and  which  explains  why  it  is  that  the  political  condition  of  the 
slaveholding  states  has  been  so  much  more  stable  and  quiet  than  those 
of  the  North.  The  advantages  of  the  former,  in  this  respect,  will  be 
come  more  and  more  manifest,  if  left  undisturbed  by  interference  from 
without,  as  the  country  advances  in  wealth  and  numbers.  We  have,  in 
fact,  but  just  entered  that  condition  of  society  where  the  strength  and 
durability  of  our  political  institutions  are  to  be  tested ;  and  I  venture 
nothing  in  predicting  that  the  experience  of  the  next  generation  will 
fully  test  how  vastly  more  favorable  our  condition  of  society  is  to  that 
of  other  sections  for  free  and  stable  institutions,  provided  we  are  not 
disturbed  by  the  interference  of  others,  or  shall  have  sufficient  intelli 
gence  and  spirit  to  resist  promptly  and  successfully  such  interference. 
It  rests  with  ourselves  to  meet  and  repel  them.  I  look  not  for  aid  to 
this  government,  or  to  the  other  states;  not  but  there  are  kind  feelings 
towards  us  on  the  part  of  the  great  body  of  the  non-slaveholding  states ; 
but,  as  kind  as  their  feelings  may  be,  we  may  rest  assured  that  no 
political  party  in  those  states  will  risk  their  ascendency  for  our  safety. 
If  we  do  not  defend  ourselves,  none  will  defend  us ;  if  we  yield,  we 
will  be  more  and  more  pressed  as  we  recede ;  and,  if  we  submit,  we 
will  be  trampled  under  foot.  Be  assured  that  emancipation  itself 
would  not  satisfy  these  fanatics :  that  gained,  the  next  step  would  be 
to  raise  the  negroes  to  a  social  and  political  equality  with  the  whites ; 
and,  that  being  effected,  we  would  soon  find  the  present  condition  of 
the  two  races  reversed.  They,  and  their  Northern  allies,  would  be  the 
masters,  and  we  the  slaves ;  the  condition  of  the  white  race  in  the 
British  West  India  Islands,  as  bad  as  it  is,  would  be  happiness  to  ours  ; 
there  the  mother-country  is  interested  in  sustaining  the  supremacy  of 
the  European  race.  It  is  true  that  the  authority  of  the  former  master 
is  destroyed,  but  the  African  will  there  still  be  a  slave,  not  to  individu 
als,  but  to  the  community — forced  to  labor,  not  by  the  authority  of  the 
overseer,  but  by  the  bayonet  of  the  soldiery  and  the  rod  of  the  civil 
magistrate. 

Surrounded,  as  the  slaveholding  states  are,  with  such  imminent  perils, 
I  rejoice  to  think  that  our  means  of  defence  are  ample,  if  we  shall 
prove  to  have  the  intelligence  and  spirit  to  see  and  apply  them  before 
it  is  too  late.  All  we  want  is  concert,  to  lay  aside  all  party  differences, 
and  unite  with  zeal  and  energy  in  repelling  approaching  dangers.  Let 
there  be  concert  of  action,  and  we  shall  find  ample  means  of  security 


JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

without  resorting  to  secession  or  disunion.  I  speak  with  full  knowl 
edge  and  a  thorough  examination  of  the  subject,  and,  for  one,  see  my 
way  clearly.  One  thing  alarms  me — the  eager  pursuit  of  gain  which 
overspreads  the  land,  and  which  absorbs  every  faculty  of  the  mind  and 
every  feeling  of  the  heart.  Of  all  passions,  avarice  is  the  most  blind 
and  compromising — the  last  to  see,  and  the  first  to  yield  to  danger.  I 
dare  not  hope  that  anything  I  can  say  will  arouse  the  South  to  a  due 
sense  of  danger;  I  fear  it  is  beyond  the  power  of  mortal  voice  to 
awaken  it  in  time  from  the  fatal  security  into  which  it  has  fallen. 

So  conclusive  were  the  objections  urged  by  Mr.  Cal 
houn,  and  so  powerfully  were  they  presented,  that  a 
majority  of  the  Senate  came  partly  over  to  him,  and  it 
was  agreed  that  the  motion  to  receive  petitions  of  this 
character  should  be  laid  upon  the  table,  which  has  been 
the  rule  uniformly  adopted  since  that  time. 

In  January,  1837,  Mr.  Calhoun  made  another  very 
able  speech  in  opposition  to  the  admission  of  the  state 
of  Michigan, — his  opposition  being  based  entirely  upon 
the  ground,  that  there  had  been  no  regular  convention 
held  to  approve  the  terms  of  admission  prescribed  by 
Congress. 

Meanwhile  Mr.  Van  Buren  had  been  elected  to  the 
presidency  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Calhoun  was 
comparatively  a  silent  spectator  of  the  contest.  He 
adhered  to  his  old  position  of  neutrality,  and  advised 
his  friends  in  South  Carolina  not  to  vote  for  either  of 
the  Whig  candidates,  Judge  White  or  Mr.  Clay,  and  in 
other  states  he  recommended  their  support  of  the 
former.  South  Carolina  gave  her  vote  for  Willie  P, 
Mangum  and  John  Tyler,  both  State  Rights  men. 

The  inaugural  message  of  Mr.  Van  Buren,  particu 
larly  so  far  as  it  related  to  the  abolition  excitement, 
was  entirely  satisfactory  to  Mr.  Calhoun.  A  few 


S837.]         SPEECH    ON    INDEPENDENT    TREASURY.  337 

weeks  passed,  and  the  terrible  commercial  revulsion 
of  1837  swept  over  the  country  as  with  the  besom  of 
destruction.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  long  anticipated  this 
disaster,  and  had  advised  his  friends  engaged  in  trade 
or  connected  with  banks  to  reef  their  sails  before  the 
blast  of  the  tempest  came  in  its  fury  upon  them.  Con 
gress  was  now  called  together  by  executive  proclama 
tion,  and  commenced  their  session  on  the  4th  day  of 
September.  Previous  to  this  time  it  had  been  inti 
mated  that  the  president  would  recommend  an  en 
tire  separation  of  the  government  from  the  banks,  and 
in  a  letter  witten  from  Edgefield,  when  on  his  way  to 
Washington,  Mr.  Calhoun  signified  his  intention  to 
support  the  administration  if  such  should  be  their 
course. 

As  had  been  predicted,  Mr.  Van  Buren  recommended 
the  divorce  of  bank  and  state,  which  had  already  taken 
place  in  point  of  fact  by  the  suspension  of  specie  pay 
ments  on  the  part  of  the  banks  ;  and  in  a  speech  on  a 
bill  providing  for  the  issue  of  treasury  notes,  delivered 
on  the  19th  of  September,  and  in  the  following  speech 
on  the  main  question,  delivered  on  the  3d  day  of  Oc 
tober,  Mr.  Calhoun  fully  indicated  his  intentions  to  go 
with  the  administration,  and  to  secure  an  entire  sepa 
ration  of  the  government  from  the  banks  : — 

SPEECH    IN    FAVOR    OF     A     SEPARATION    OF    THE     GOVERN 
MENT    FROM     THE    BANKS. 

MR.  PRESIDENT:  la  reviewing  this  discussion,  I  have  been  struck 
with  the  fact,  that  the  argument  on  the  opposite  side  has  been  limited, 
almost  exclusively,  to  the  questions  of  relief  and  the  currency.  These 
are,  undoubtedly,  important  questions,  and  well  deserving  the  deliberate 
consideration  of  the  Senate ;  but  there  are  other  questions  involved  ia 


338  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

this  issue  of  a  far  more  elevated  character,  which  more  imperiously  de 
mand  our  attention.  The  banks  have  ceased  to  be  mere  moneyed  in- 
corporations.  They  have  become  great  political  institutions,  with  vast 
influence  over  the  welfare  of  the  community ;  so  much  so,  that  a  highly 
distinguished  senator  (Mr.  Clay)  has  declared,  in  his  place,  that  the 
question  of  the  disunion  of  the  government  and  the  banks  involved  in 
its  consequences  the  disunion  of  the  states  themselves.  "With  this  dec 
laration  sounding  in  our  ears,  it  is  time  to  look  into  the  origin  of  a  sys 
tem  which  has  already  acquired  such  mighty  influence  ;  to  inquire  into 
the  causes  which  have  produced  it,  and  whether  they  are  still  on  the 
increase ;  in  what  they  will  terminate,  if  left  to  themselves  ;  and, 
finally,  whether  the  system  is  favorable  to  the  permanency  of  our  free 
institutions ;  to  the  industry  and  business  of  the  country ;  and  above 
all,  to  the  moral  and  intellectual  development  of  the  community.  I 
feel  the  vast  importance  and  magnitude  of  these  topics,  as  well  as 
their  great  delicacy.  I  shall  touch  them  with  extreme  reluctance,  and 
only  because  I  believe  them  to  belong  to  the  occasion,  and  that  it  would 
be  a  dereliction  of  public  duty  to  withhold  any  opinion,  which  I  have 
deliberately  formed,  on  the  subject  under  discussion. 

The  rise  and  progress  of  the  banking  system  is  one  of  the  most  re 
markable  and  curious  phenomena  of  modern  times.  Its  origin  is  mod 
ern  and  humble,  and  gave  no  indication  of  the  extraordinary  growth 
and  influence  which  it  was  destined  to  attain.  It  dates  back  to  1609, 
the  year  that  the  Bank  of  Amsterdam  was  established.  Other  bank 
ing  institutions  preceded  it ;  but  they  were  insulated,  and  not  immedi 
ately  connected  with  the  systems  which  have  since  sprung  up,  and 
which  may  be  distinctly  traced  to  that  bank,  which  was  a  bank  of  de 
posit — a  mere  storehouse — established  under  the  authority  of  that  great 
commercial  metropolis,  for  the  purpose  of  safe-keeping  the  precious 
metals,  and  facilitating  the  vast  system  of  exchanges  which  then  centred 
there.  The  whole  system  was  the  most  simple  and  beautiful  that  can 
be  imagined.  The  depositor,  on  delivering  his  bullion  or  coin  in  store, 
received  a  credit,  estimated  at  the  standard  value  on  the  books  of  the 
bank,  and  a  certificate  of  deposit  for  the  amount,  which  was  transfer 
able  from  hand  to  hand,  and  entitled  the  holder  to  withdraw  the  de 
posit  on  payment  of  a  moderate  fee  for  the  expense  and  hazard  of 
safe-keeping.  These  certificates  became,  in  fact,  the  circulating  medium 
of  the  community,  performing,  as  it  were,  the  hazard  and  drudgery, 
while  the  precious  metals,  which  they,  in  truth,  represented,  guilder  fav 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      339 

guilder,  lay  quietly  in  store,  without  being  exposed  to  the  wear  and 
tear,  or  losses  incidental  to  actual  use.  It  was  thus  a  paper  currency 
wits  created,  having  all  the  solidity,  safety,  and  uniformity  of  a  metallic, 
with  the  facility  belonging  to  that  of  paper.  The  whole  arrangement 
was  admirable,  and  worthy  of  the  strong  sense  and  downright  honesty 
of  the  people  with  whom  it  originated. 

Out  of  this,  which  may  be  called  the  first  era  of  the  system,  grew 
the  bank  of  deposit,  discount,  and  circulation — a  great  and  mighty 
change,  destined  to  effect  a  revolution  in  the  condition  of  modern  so 
ciety.  It  is  not  difficult  to  explain  how  the  one  system  should  spring 
from  the  other,  notwithstanding  the  striking  dissimilarity  in  features 
and  character  between  the  offspring  and  the  parent.  A  vast  sum,  not  less 
than  three  millions  sterling,  accumulated  and  remained  habitually  in 
deposit  in  the  Bank  of  Amsterdam,  the  place  of  the  returned  certifi 
cates  being  constantly  supplied  by  new  depositors.  With  so  vast  a 
standing  deposit,  it  required  but  little  reflection  to  perceive  that  a  very 
large  portion  of  it  might  be  withdrawn,  and  that  a  sufficient  amount 
would  be  still  left  to  meet  the  returning  certificates ;  or,  what  would 
be  the  same  in  effect,  that  an  equal  amount  of  fictitious  certificates 
might  be  issued  beyond  the  sum  actually  deposited.  Either  process, 
if  interest  be  charged  on  the  deposits  withdrawn,  or  the  fictitious  cer 
tificates  issued,  would  be  a  near  approach  to  a  bank  of  discount.  This 
once  seen,  it  required  but  little  reflection  to  perceive  that  the  same 
process  would  be  equally  applicable  to  a  capital  placed  in  bank  as 
stock ;  and  from  that  the  transition  was  easy  to  issuing  bank-notes  pay 
able  on  demand,  on  bills  of  exchange,  or  promissory  notes,  having  but 
a  short  time  to  run.  These,  combined,  constitute  the  elements  of  a 
bank  of  discount,  deposit,  and  circulation. 

Modern  ingenuity  and  dishonesty  would  not  have  been  long  in  per 
ceiving  and  turning' such  advantages  to  account;  but  the  faculties  of 
the  plain  Belgian  were  either  too  blunt  to  perceive,  or  his  honesty  too 
stern  to  avail  himself  of  them.  To  his  honor,  there  is  reason  to  be 
lieve,  notwithstanding  the  temptation,  the  deposits  were  sacredly  kept, 
and  that  for  every  certificate  in  circulation,  there  was  a  corresponding 
amount  in  bullion  or  coin  in  store.  It  was  reserved  for  another  peo 
ple,  either  more  ingenious  or  less  scrupulous,  to  make  the  change. 

The  Bank  of  England  was  incorporated  in  1694,  eighty-five  years 
after  that  of  Amsterdam,  and  was  the  first  bank  of  deposit,  discount, 
and  circulation.  Its  capital  was  £1,200,000,  consisting  wholly  of  gov- 


340  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

ernment  stock,  bearing  an  interest  of  eight  per  cent,  per  annum.  Its 
notes  were  received  in  the  dues  of  the  government,  and  the  public  reve 
nue  was  deposited  in  the  bank.  It  was  authorized  to  circulate  ex 
chequer  bills,  and  make  loans  to  government.  Let  us  pause  for  a  mo 
ment,  and  contemplate  this  complex  and  potent  machine,  under  its 
various  character  and  functions. 

As  a  bank  of  deposit,  it  was  authorized  to  receive  deposits,  not 
simply  for  safe-keeping,  to  be  returned  when  demanded  by  the  depos 
itor,  but  to  be  used  and  loaned  out  for  the  benefit  of  the  institution, 
care  being  taken  always  to  be  provided  with  the  means  of  return 
ing  an  equal  amount,  when  demanded.  As  a  bank  of  discount  and 
circulation,  it  issued  its  notes  on  the  faith  of  its  capital  stock  and  de 
posits,  or  discounted  bills  of  exchange  and  promissory  notes  backed  by 
responsible  endorsers,  charging  an  interest  something  greater  than  was 
authorized  by  law  to  be  charged  on  loans ;  and  thus  allowing  it,  for 
the  use  of  its  credit,  a  higher  rate  of  compensation  than  what  individ 
uals  were  authorized  to  receive  for  the  use  and  hazard  of  money  or 
capital  loaned  out.  It  will,  perhaps,  place  this  point  in  a  clear  light,  if 
we  should  consider  the  transaction  in  its  true  character,  not  as  a  loan, 
but  as  a  mere  exchange  of  credit.  In  discounting,  the  bank  takes,  in 
the  shape  of  a  promissory  note,  the  credit  of  an  individual  so  good  that 
another,  equally  responsible,  endorses  his  note  for  nothing,  and  gives 
out  its  credit  in  the  form  of  a  bank-note.  The  transaction  is  obviously 
a  mere  exchange  of  credit.  If  the  drawer  and  endorser  break,  the  loss 
is  the  Bank's  ;  but  if  the  Bank  breaks,  the  loss  falls  on  the  community  ; 
and  yet  this  transaction,  so  dissimilar,  is  confounded  with  a  loan,  and 
the  bank  permitted  to  charge,  on  a  mere  exchange  of  credit,  in  which 
the  hazard  of  the  breaking  of  the  drawer  and  endorser  is  incurred  by 
the  Bank,  and  that  of  the  Bank  by  the  community,  a  higher  sum  than 
the  legal  rate  of  interest  on  a  loan  ;  in  which,  besides  the  use  of  his 
capital,  the  hazard  is  all  on  the  side  of  the  lender. 

Turning  from  these  to  the  advantages  which  it  derived  from  its  con 
nection  with  the  government,  we  shall  find  them  not  less  striking. 
Among  the  first  of  these  in  importance  is  the  fact  of  its  notes  being 
received  in  the  dues  of  the  government,  by  which  the  credit  of  the 
government  was  added  to  that  of  the  Bank,  which  added  so  greatly  to 
the  increase  of  its  circulation.  These,  again,  when  collected  by  the 
government,  were  placed  in  deposit  in  the  Bank;  thus  giving  to  it 
not  only  the  profit  resulting  from  their  abstraction  from  circulation, 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.       341 

from  the  time  of  collecting  till  disbursement,  but  also  that  from  the  use 
of  the  public  deposits  in  the  interval.  To  complete  the  picture,  the 
Bank,  in  its  capacity  of  lender  to  the  government,  in  fact  paid  its  own 
notes,  which  rested  on  the  faith  of  the  government  stock,  on  which  it 
was  drawing  eight  per  cent. ;  so  that,  in  truth,  it  but  loaned  to  the  gov 
ernment  its  own  credit. 

Such  were  the  extraordinary  advantages  conferred  on  this  institution, 
and  of  which  it  had  an  exclusive  monopoly ;  and  these  are  the  causes 
which  gave  such  an  extraordinary  impulse  to  its  growth  and  influence, 
that  it  increased  in  a  little  more  than  a  hundred  years — from  1694, 
when  the  second  era  of  the  system  commenced,  with  the  establishment 
of  the  Bank  of  England,  to  1797,  when  it  terminated — from  1,200,OOOJ. 
to  nearly  11,000,000^.,  and  this  mainly  by  the  addition  to  its  capital 
through  loans  to  the  government  above  the  profits  of  its  annual  divi 
dends.  Before  entering  on  the  third  era  of  the  system,  I  pause  to  make 
a  few  reflections  on  the  second. 

I  am  struck,  in  casting  my  eyes  over  it,  to  find  that,  notwithstanding 
the  great  dissimilarity  of  features  which  the  system  had  assumed  in 
passing  from  a  mere  bank  of  deposit,  to  that  of  deposit,  discount,  and 
circulation,  the  operation  of  the  latter  was  confounded,  throughout  this 
long  period,  as  it  regards  the  effects  on  the  currency,  with  the  bank  of 
deposit.  Its  notes  were  uuiver.-ally  regarded  as  representing  gold  and 
silver,  and  as  depending  on  that  representation  exclusively  for  their  cir 
culation  ;  as  much  so  as  did  the  certificates  of  deposit  in  the  original  Bank 
of  Amsterdam.  No  one  supposed  that  thev  could  retain  their  credit  for  a 
moment  after  they  ceased  to  be  convertible  into  the  metals  on  demand  ; 
nor  were  they  supposed  to  have  the  effect  of  increasing  the  aggregate 
amount  of  the  currency  ;  nor,  of  course,  of  increasing  prices.  In  a  word, 
they  were  in  the  public  mind  as  completely  identified  with  the  metallic 
currency  as  if  every  note  in  circulation  had  laid  up  in  the  vaults  of  the 
Bank  an  equal  amount,  pound  for  pound,  into  which  all  its  paper  could 
be  converted  the  moment  it  was  presented. 

All  this  was  a  great  delusion.  The  issues  of  (he  Bank  never  did 
represent,  from  the  first,  the  precious  metals.  Instead  of  the  representa 
tives,  its  notes  were,  in  reality,  the  substitute  for  coin.  Instead  of  being 
the  mere  drudges,  performing  all  the  out-door  service,  while  the  coins 
reposed  at  ease  in  the  vaults  of  the  banks,  free  from  wear  and  tear, 
and  the  hazard  of  loss  or  destruction,  as  did  the  certificates  of  deposit 
in  the  original  Bank  of  Amsterdam,  they  substituted,  degraded,  and 


342  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837, 

banished  the  coins.  Every  note  circulated  became  the  substitute  of  so 
much  coin,  and  dispensed  with  it  in  circulation,  and  thereby  depreciated 
the  value  of  the  precious  metals,  and  increased  their  consumption  in  the 
same  proportion ;  while  it  diminished  in  the  same  degree  the  supply, 
by  rendering  mining  less  profitable.  The  system  assumed  gold  and 
silver  as  the  basis  of  its  circulation ;  and  yet,  by  the  laws  of  its  nature, 
just  as  it  increased  its  circulation,  in  the  same  degree  the  foundation  on 
which  the  system  stood  was  weakened.  The  consumption  of  the  metals 
increased,  and  the  supply  diminished.  As  the  weight  of  the  super 
structure  increased,  just  in  the  same  proportion  its  foundation  was  un 
dermined  and  weakened.  Thus  the  germ  of  destruction  was  implanted 
in  the  system  at  its  birth ;  has  expanded  with  its  growth,  and  must 
terminate,  finally,  in  its  dissolution,  unless,  indeed,  it  should,  by  some 
transition,  entirely  change  its  nature,  and  pass  into  some  other  and  en 
tirely  different  organic  form.  The  conflict  between  bank  circulation 
and  metallic  (though  not  perceived  in  the  first  stage  of  the  system, 
when  they  were  supposed  to  be  indissol  ably  connected)  is  mortal ;  one 
or  the  other  must  perish  in  the  struggle.  Such  is  the  decree  of  fate ; 
it  is  irreversible. 

Near  the  close  of  the  second  era,  the  system  passed  the  Atlantic, 
and  took  root  in  our  country,  where  it  found  the  soil  still  more  fertile, 
and  the  climate  more  congenial  than  even  in  the  parent  country.  The 
Bank  of  North  America  was  established  in  1781,  with  a  capital  of 
$400,000,  and  bearing  all  the  features  of  its  prototype,  the  Bank  of 
England.  In  the  short  space  of  a  little  more  than  half  a  century,  the 
system  has  expanded  from  one  bank  to  about  eight  hundred,  including 
branches  (no  one  knows  the  exact  number,  so  rapid  the  increase),  and 
from  a  capital  of  less  than  half  a  million  to  about  $300,000,000,  with 
out,  apparently,  exhausting  or  diminishing  its  capacity  to  increase.  So 
accelerated  has  been  its  growth  with  us,  from  causes  which  I  explained 
on  a  former  occasion,*  that  already  it  has  approached  a  point  much 
nearer  the  limits  beyond  which  the  system,  in  its  present  form,  cannot 
advance,  than  in  England. 

During  the  year  1797,  the  Bank  of  England  suspended  specie  pay 
ments  ;  an  event  destined,  by  its  consequences,  to  effect  a  revolution  in 
public  opinion  in  relation  to  the  system,  and  to  accelerate  the  period 


*  See  Speech  on  Mr.  Webster's  motion  to  renew  the  charter  of  the 
United  States  Bank  in  1834. 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      343 

which  must  determine  its  fate.  England  was  then  engaged  in  that 
gigantic  struggle  which  originated  in  the  French  Revolution,  and  her 
financial  operations  were  on  the  most  extended  scale,  followed  by  a 
corresponding  increase  in  the  action  of  the  Bank,  as  her  fiscal  agent. 
It  sunk  under  its  over-action.  Specie  payments  were  suspended.  Panic 
and  dismay  spread  through  the  land — so  deep  and  durable  was  the 
impression  that  the  credit  of  the  Bank  depended  exclusively  on  the 
punctuality  of  its  payments. 

In  the  midst  of  the  alarm,  an  act  of  Parliament  was  passed  making 
the  notes  of  the  Bank  a  legal  tender ;  and,  to  the  surprise  of  all,  the 
institution  proceeded  on,  apparently  without  any  diminution  of  its 
credit.  Its  notes  circulated  freely  as  ever,  and  without  any  deprecia 
tion,  for  a  time,  compared  with  gold  and  silver ;  and  continued  so  to  do 
for  upward  of  twenty  years,  with  an  average  diminution  of  about  one 
per  cent,  per  annum.  This  shock  did  much  to  dispel  the  delusion  that 
bank-notes  represented  gold  and  silver,  and  that  they  circulated  in  con 
sequence  of  such  representation,  but  without  entirely  obliterating  the 
old  impression  which  had  taken  such  strong  hold  on  the  public  mind. 
The  credit  of  its  notes  during  the  suspension  was  generally  attributed 
to  the  tender  act,  and  the  great  and  united  resources  of  the  Bank  and 
the  government. 

But  an  event  followed  of  the  same  kind,  under  circumstances  entirely 
different,  which  did  more  than  any  preceding  to  shed  light  on  the  true 
nature  of  the  system,  and  to  unfold  its  vast  capacity  to  sustain  itself 
without  exterior  aid.  We  finally  became  involved  in  the  mighty  strug 
gle  that  had  so  long  desolated  Europe  and  enriched  our  country.  War 
was  declared  against  Great  Britain  in  1812,  and  in  the  short  space  of  one 
year  our  feeble  banking  system  sunk  under  the  increased  fiscal  action 
of  government.  I  was  then  a  member  of  the  other  house,  and  had 
taken  my  full  share  of  responsibility  in  the  measures  which  had  led  to 
that  result.  I  shall  never  forget  the  sensation  which  the  suspension, 
and  the  certain  anticipation  of  the  prostration  of  the  currency  of  the 
country,  as  a  consequence,  excited  in  my  mind.  We  could  resort  to  no 
tender  act ;  we  had  no  great  central  regulating  power,  like  the  Bank 
of  England;  and  the  credit  and  resources  of  the  government  were 
comparatively  small.  Under  such  circumstances,  I  looked  forward  to 
a  sudden  and  great  depreciation  of  bank-notes,  and  that  they  would 
fall  speedily  as  low  as  the  old  continental  money.  Guess  my  surprise 
when  I  saw  them  sustain  their  credit  with  scarcely  any  depreciation, 


344  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOITN.  [1837. 

for  a  time,  from  the  shock  I  distinctly  recollect  when  I  first  asked 
myself  the  question,  What  was  the  cause  I  and  which  directed  my  in 
quiry  into  the  extraordinary  phenomenon-.  I  soon  saw  that  the  system 
contained  within  itself  a  self-sustaining  power  ;  that  there  was  between 
the  banks  and  the  community,  mutually,  the  relation  of  debtor  and 
creditor,  there  being  at  all  times  something  more  due  to  the  banks  from 
the  community  than  from  the  latter  to  the  former.  I  saw,  in  this  re 
ciprocal  relation  of  debts  and  credits,  that  the  demand  of  the  banks  on 
the  community  was  greater  than  the  amount  of  their  notes  in  circulation 
could  meet ;  and  that,  consequently,  so  long  as  their  debtors  were  sol 
vent,  and  bound  to  pay  at  short  periods,  their  notes  could  not  fail  to 
be  at  or  near  a  par  with  gold  and  silver.  I  also  saw  that,  as  their 
debtors  were  principally  the  merchants,  they  would  take  bank-notes  to 
meet  tbeir  bank  debts,  and  that  that  which  the  merchant  and  the  gov 
ernment,  who  are  the  great  money -dealers,  take,  the  rest  of  the  con> 
munity  would  also  take.  Seeing  all  this,  I  clearly  perceived  that  self- 
sustaining  principle  which  poised  the  system,  self-balanced,  like  some 
celestial  body,  moving  with  scarcely  a  perceptible  deviation  from  its 
path,  from  the  concussion  it  had  receired. 

Shortly  after  the  termination  of  the  war,  specie  payments  were 
coerced  with  us  by  the  establishment  of  a  Natioml  Bank,  and  a  fe\v 
years  afterward,  in  Great  Britain,  by  an  act  of  Parliament.  In  both 
countries  the  restoration  was  followed  by  wide-spread  distress,  as  it 
always  must  be  when  effected  by  coercion ;  for  the  simple  reason  that 
banks  cannot  pay  unless  their  debtors  first  pay,  and  that  to  coerce  the 
banks  compels  them  to  coerce  their  debtors  before  they  have  the 
means  to  pay.  Their  failure  must  be  the  consequence-,  asd  this  in 
volves  the  failure  of  the  banks  themselves,  carrying  with  it  universal 
distress.  Hence  I  am  opposed  to  all  kinds  of  coercion,  and  am  in  favor 
of  leaving  the  disease  to  time,  with  the  action  of  public  sentiment  and 
the  states,  to  which  the  banks  are  alone  responsible. 

But  to  proceed  with  my  narrative.  Although  specie  payments  were 
restored,  and  the  system  apparently  placed  where  it  was  before  the 
suspension,  the  great  capacity  it  proved  to  possess  of  sustaining  itself 
without  specie  payments,  was  not  forgot  by  those  who  had  its  direction- 
The  impression  that  it  was  indispensable  to  the  circulation  of  bank-note? 
that  they  should  represent  the  precious  metals,  was  almost  obliterated  • 
and  the  latter  were  regarded  rather  as  restrictions  on  the  free  ane 
profitable  operation  of  the  system  than  as  the  means  of  its  security 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      345 

Hence  a  feeling  of  opposition  to  gold  and  silver  gradually  grew  up  on 
the  part  of  the  banks,  which  created  an  esprit  du  corps,  followed  by  a 
moral  resistance  to  specie  payments,  if  I  may  so  express  myself,  which 
m  fact  suspended,  in  a  great  degree,  the  conversion  of  their  notes  into 
the  precious  metals,  long  before  the  present  suspension.  With  the 
growth  of  this  feeling,  banking  business  assumed  a  bolder  character, 
and  its  profits  were  proportionably  enlarged,  and  with  it  the  tendency 
of  the  system  to  increase  kept  pace.  The  effect  of  this  soon  displayed 
itself  in  a  striking  manner,  which  was  followed  by  very  important  con 
sequences,  which  I  shall  next  explain. 

It  so  happened  that  the  charters  of  the  Bank  of  England  and  the 
late  Bank  of  the  United  States  expired  about  the  same  time.  As  the 
period  approached,  a  feeling  of  hostility,  growing  out  of  the  causes  just 
explained,  which  had  excited  a  strong  desire  in  the  community,  who 
could  not  participate  in  the  profits  of  these  two  great  monopolies,  to 
throw  off  their  restraint,  began  to  disclose  itself  against  both  institutions. 
In  Great  Britain  it  terminated  in  breaking  down  the  exclusive  monopoly 
of  the  Bank  of  England,  and  narrowing  greatly  the  specie  basis  of  the 
system,  by  making  the  notes  of  the  Bank  of  England  a  legal  tender  in 
all  cases,  except  between  it  and  its  creditors.  A  sudden  and  vast  in 
crease  of  the  system,  with  a  great  diminution  of  the  metallic  basis 
in  proportion  to  banking  transactions,  followed,  which  has  shocked 
and  weakened  the  stability  of  the  system  there.  With  us  the  result 
was  different.  The  Bank  fell  under  the  hostility  of  the  government. 
All  restraint  on  the  system  was  removed,  and  banks  shot  up  in 
every  direction  almost  instantly,  under  the  growing  impulse  which 
I  have  explained,  and  which,  with  the  causes  I  stated  when  I  first 
addressed  the  Senate  on  this  question,  is  the  cause  of  the  present  catas 
trophe. 

With  it  commences  the  fourth  era  of  the  system,  which  we  have  just 
entered — an  era  of  struggle,  and  conflict,  and  changes.  The  system  can 
advance  no  farther  in  our  country,  without  great  and  radical  changes. 
It  has  come  to  a  stand.  The  conflict  between  metallic  and  bank  cur 
rency,  which  I  have  shown  to  be  inherent  in  the  system,  has,  in  the 
course  of  time,  and  with  the  progress  of  events,  become  so  deadly  that 
they  must  separate,  and  one  or  the  other  fall.  The  degradation  of  the 
value  of  the  metals,  and  their  almost  entire  expulsion  from  their 
appropriate  sphere  as  the  medium  of  exchange  and  the  standard  of 
value,  have  gone  so  far,  under  the  necessary  operation  of  the  system, 

15* 


346  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

that  they  are  no  longer  sufficient  to  form  the  basis  of  the  widely-extend 
ed  system  of  banking.  From  the  first,  the  gravitation  of  the  system  has 
been  in  one  direction — to  dispense  with  the  use  of  the  metals  ;  and  hence 
the  descent  from  a  bank  of  deposit  to  one  of  discount;  and  hence,  from 
being  the  representative,  their  notes  have  become  the  substitute  for  gold 
and  silver ;  and  hence,  finally,  its  present  tendency  to  a  mere  paper 
engine,  totally  separated  from  the  metals.  One  law  has  steadily  gov 
erned  the  system  throughout — the  enlargement  of  its  profits  and  influ 
ence  ;  and,  as  a  consequence,  as  metallic  currency  became  insufficient 
for  circulation,  it  has  become,  in  its  progress,  insufficient  for  the  basis  of 
banking  operations ;  so  much  so,  that,  if  specie  payments  were  restored, 
it  would  be  but  nominal,  and  the  system  would  in  a  few  years,  on  the 
first  adverse  current,  sink  down  again  into  its  present  helpless  condition. 
Nothing  can  prevent  it  but  great  and  radical  changes,  which  would 
diminish  its  profits  and  influence,  so  as  effectually  to  arrest  that  strong 
and  deep  current  which  has  carried  so  much  of  the  wealth  and  capital 
of  the  community  in  that  direction.  Without  that,  the  system,  as  now 
constituted,  must  fall ;  unless,  indeed,  it  can  form  an  alliance  with  the 
government,  and  through  it  establish  its  authority  by  law,  and  make  its 
credit,  unconnected  with  gold  and  silver,  the  medium  of  circulation.  If 
the  alliance  should  take  place,  one  of  the  first  movements  would  be  the 
establishment  of  a  great  central  institution ;  or,  if  that  should  prove 
impracticable,  a  combination  of  a  few  selected  and  powerful  state  banks, 
which,  sustained  by  the  government,  would  crush  or  subject  the  weaker, 
to  be  followed  by  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  or  some  other 
device,  to  limit  their  number  and  the  amount  of  their  capital  hereafter. 
This  done,  the  next  step  would  be  to  confine  and  consolidate  the 
supremacy  of  the  system  over  the  currency  of  the  country,  which  would 
be  in  its  hands  exclusively,  and,  through  it,  over  the  industry,  business, 
and  politics  of  the  country ;  all  of  which  would  be  wielded  to  advance 
its  profits  and  powers. 

The  system  having  now  arrived  at  this  point,  the  great  and  solemn 
duty  devolves  on  us  to  determine  this  day  what  relation  this  govern 
ment  shall  hereafter  bear  to  it.  Shall  we  enter  into  an  alliance  with  it 
and  become  the  sharers  of  its  fortune  and  the  instrument  of  its  aggran 
dizement  and  supremacy  ?  This  is  the  momentous  question  on  which 
we  must  now  decide.  Before  we  decide,  it  behooves  us  to  inquire 
whether  the  system  is  favorable  to  the  permanency  of  our  free  repub 
lican  institutions,  to  the  industry  and  business  of  the  country,  and,  above 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.       347 

all,  to  our  moral  and  intellectual  development,  the  great  object  for 
which  we  were  placed  here  by  the  Author  of  our  being. 

Can  it  be  doubted  what  must  be  the  effects  of  a  system  whose  opera 
tions  have  been  shown  to  be  so  unequal  on  free  institutions,  whose  foun 
dation  rests  on  an  equality  of  rights  ?  Can  that  favor  equality  which 
gives  to  one  portion  of  the  citizens  and  the  country  such  decided  advan 
tages  over  the  other,  as  I  have  shown  it  does  in  my  opening  remarks  ? 
Can  that  be  favorable  to  liberty  which  concentrates  the  money  power, 
and  places  it  under  the  control  of  a  few  powerful  and  wealthy  individ 
uals  ?  It  is  the  remark  of  a  profound  statesman,  that  the  revenue  is 
the  state ;  and,  of  course,  those  who  control  the  revenue  control  the 
state  ;  and  those  who  can  control  the  money  power  can  control  the  rev 
enue,  and  through  it  the  state,  with  the  property  and  industry  of  the 
country,  in  all  its  ramifications.  Let  us  pause  for  a  moment,  and  re 
flect  on  the  nature  and  extent  of  this  tremendous  power. 

The  currency  of  a  country  is  to  the  community  what  the  blood  is  to 
the  human  system.  It  constitutes  a  small  part,  but  it  circulates  through 
every  portion,  and  is  indispensable  to  all  the  functions  of  life.  The 
currency  bears  even  a  smaller  proportion  to  the  aggregate  capital  of 
the  community  than  what  the  blood  does  to  the  solids  in  the  human 
system.  What  that  proportion  is,  has  not  been,  and  perhaps  cannot  be, 
accurately  ascertained,  as  it  is  probably  subject  to  considerable  varia 
tions.  It  is,  however,  probably  between  twenty-five  and  thirty-five  to 
one.  I  will  assume  it  to  be  thirty  to  one.  With  this  assumption  let 
us  suppose  a  community  whose  aggregate  capital  is  $31,000,000  ;  its 
currency  would  be,  by  supposition,  one  million,  and  the  residue  of  its 
capital  thirty  millions.  This  being  assumed,  if  the  currency  be  increas 
ed  or  decreased,  the  other  portion  of  the  capital  remaining  the  same, 
according  to  the  well-known  laws  of  currency,  property  would  rise  or 
fall  with  the  increase  or  decrease :  that  is,  if  the  currency  be  increased 
to  two  millions,  the  aggregate  value  of  property  would  rise  to  sixty 
millions ;  and,  if  the  currency  be  reduced  to  3500,000,  it  would  be  re 
duced  to  fifteen  millions.  With  this  law  so  well  established,  place  the 
money  power  in  the  hands  of  a  single  individual,  or  a  combination  of 
individuals,  and  they,  by  expanding  or  contracting  tho  currency,  may 
raise  or  sink  prices  at  pleasure  ;  and  by  purchasing  when  at  the  great 
est  depression,  and  selling  at  the  greatest  elevation,  may  command  the 
whole  property  and  industry  of  the  community,  and  control  its  fiscal 
operations.  The  banking  system  concentrates  and  places  this  power  in 


348  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

the  hands  of  those  who  control  it,  and  its  force  increases  just  in  propor 
tion  as  it  dispenses  with  a  metallic  basis.  Never  was  an  engine  invent 
ed  better  calculated  to  place  the  destiny  of  the  many  in  the  hands  of 
the  few,  or  less  favorable  to  that  equality  and  independence  which  lies 
at  the  bottom  of  our  free  institutions. 

These  views  have  a  bearing  not  less  decisive  on  the  next  inquiry — 
the  effects  of  the  system  on  the  industry  and  wealth  of  the  country. 
Whatever  may  have  been  its  effects  in  this  respect  in  its  early  stages,  it 
is  difficult  to  imagine  anything  more  mischievous  on  all  of  the  pursuits 
of  life  than  the  frequent  and  sudden  expansions  and  contractions,  to 
which  it  has  now  become  so  habitually  subject  that  it  may  be  consid 
ered  its  ordinary  condition.  None  but  those  in  the  secret  know  what  to 
do.  All  are  pausing  and  looking  out  to  ascertain  whether  an  expan 
sion  or  contraction  is  next  to  follow,  and  what  will  be  its  extent  and 
duration  ;  and  if,  perchance,  an  error  be  committed — if  it  expands  when 
a  contraction  is  expected,  or  the  reverse — the  most  prudent  may  lose 
by  the  miscalculation  the  fruits  of  a  life  of  toil  and  care.  The  conse 
quence  is,  to  discourage  industry,  and  to  convert  the  whole  community 
into  stock-jobbers  and  speculators.  The  evil  is  constantly  on  the  increase, 
and  must  continue  to  increase  just  as  the  banking  system  becomes  more 
diseased,  till  it  shall  become  utterly  intolerable. 

But  its  most  fatal  effects  originate  in  its  bearing  on  the  moral  and  in 
tellectual  development  of  the  community.  The  great  principle  of  de 
mand  and  supply  governs  the  moral  and  intellectual  world  no  less  than 
the  business  and  commercial.  If  a  community  be  so  constituted  as  to 
cause  a  demand  for  high  mental  attainments,  or  if  its  honors  and  rewards 
are  allotted  to  pursuits  that  require  their  development,  by  creating  a 
demand  for  intelligence,  knowledge,  wisdom,  justice,  firmness,  courage, 
patriotism,  and  the  like,  they  are  sure  to  be  produced.  But  if,  on  the 
contrary,  they  be  allotted  to  pursuits  that  require  inferior  qualities,  the 
higher  are  sure  to  decay  and  perish.  I  object  to  the  banking  system, 
because  it  allots  the  honors  and  rewards  of  the  community,  in  a  very 
undue  proportion  to  a  pursuit  the  least  of  all  favorable  to  the  develop 
ment  of  the  higher  mental  qualities,  intellectual  or  moral,  to  the  decay 
of  the  learned  professions,  and  the  more  noble  pursuits  of  science,  litera 
ture,  philosophy,  and  statesmanship,  and  the  great  and  more  useful  pur 
suits  of  business  and  industry.  With  the  vast  increase  of  its  profits  and 
influence,  it  is  gradually  concentrating  in  itself  most  of  the  prizes  of  life 
—  wealth,  honor,  and  influence,  to  the  great  disparagement  and  degrada- 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      349 

tion  of  all  the  liberal,  and  useful,  and  generous  pursuits  of  society.  The 
rising  generation  cannot  but  feel  its  deadening  influence.  The  youths 
who  crowd  our  colleges,  and  behold  the  road  to  honor  and  distinction 
terminating  in  a  banking-house,  will  feel  the  spirit  of  emulation  decay 
within  them,  and  wrill  no  longer  be  pressed  forward  by  generous  ardor 
to  mount  up  the  rugged  steep  of  science  as  the  road  to  honor  and  dis 
tinction,  when,  perhaps,  the  highest  point  they  could  attain,  in  what  was 
once  the  most  honorable  and  influential  of  all  the  learned  professions, 
would  be  the  place  of  attorney  to  a  bank. 

Nearly  four  years  since,  on  the  question  of  the  removal  of  the  de 
posits,  although  I  was  opposed  to  the  removal,  and  in  favor  of  their 
restoration,  because  I  believed  it  to  be  illegal,  yet,  foreseeing  what  was 
coming,  and  not  wishing  there  should  be  any  mistake  as  to  mv  opinion 
on  the  banking  system,  I  stated  here  in  my  place  what  that  opinion 
was.  I  declared  that  I  had  long  entertained  doubts,  if  doubts  they  might 
be  called,  which  were  daily  increasing,  that  the  system  made  the  worst 
possible  distribution  of  the  wealth  of  the  community,  and  that  it  would 
ultimately  be  found  hostile  to  the  farther  advancement  of  civilization 
and  liberty.  This  declaration  was  not  lightly  made ;  and  I  have  now 
unfolded  the  grounds  on  which  it  rested,  and  which  subsequent  events 
and  reflection  have  matured  into  a  settled  conviction. 

With  all  these  consequences  before  us,  shall  we  restore  the  broken 
connection  ?  Shall  we  again  unite  the  government  with  the  system  ? 
And  what  are  the  arguments  opposed  to  these  high  and  weighty  objec 
tions  ?  Instead  of  meeting  them  and  denying  their  truth,  er  opposing 
others  of  equal  weight,  a  rabble  of  objections  (I  can  call  them  by  no 
better  name)  are  urged  against  the  separation  :  one  currency  for  the 
government,  and  another  for  the  people ;  separation  of  the  people  from 
the  government ;  taking  care  of  the  government,  and  not  of  the  people  ; 
,<nd  a  whole  fraternity  of  others  of  like  character.  When  I  first  saw 
them  advanced  in  the  columns  of  a  newspaper,  I  could  not  but  smile, 
in  thinking  how  admirably  they  were  suited  to  an  electioneering  can 
vass.  They  have  a  certain  plausibility  about  them,  which  makes  them 
troublesome  to  an  opponent  simply  because  they  are  merely  plausible, 
without  containing  one  particle  of  reason.  I  little  expected  to  meet  them 
in  discussion  in  this  place ;  but  since  they  have  been  gravely  introduced 
here,  respect  for  the  place  and  company  exacts  a  passing  notice,  to  which, 
of  themselves,  they  are  not  entitled. 

I  begin  with  that  which  is  first  pushed  forward,  and  seems  to  be  most 


350  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  fl837. 

relied  on — one  currency  for  the  government  and  another  for  the  peo 
ple.  Is  it  meant  that  the  government  must  take  in  payment  of  its  debts 
whatever  the  people  take  in  payment  of  theirs  ?  If  so,  it  is  a  very 
broad  proposition,  and  would  lead  to  important  consequences.  The 
people  now  receive  the  notes  of  non-specie-paying  banks.  Is  it  meant 
that  the  government  should  also  receive  them  ?  They  receive  in  change 
all  sorts  of  paper,  issued  by  we  know  not  whom.  Must  the  government 
also  receive  them  ?  They  receive  the  notes  of  banks  issuing  notes  under 
five,  ten,  and  twenty  dollars.  Is  it  intended  that  the  government  shall 
also  permanently  receive  them  ?  They  receive  bills  of  exchange.  Shall 
government,  too,  receive  them  ?  If  not,  I  ask  the  reason.  Is  it  because 
they  are  not  suitable  for  a  sound,  stable,  and  uniform  currency  ?  The 
reason  is  good :  but  what  becomes  of  the  principle,  that  the  government 
ought  to  take  whatever  the  people  take  ?  But  I  go  farther.  It  is  the 
duty  of  government  to  receive  nothing  in  its  dues  that  it  has  not  the 
right  to  render  uniform  and  stable  in  its  value.  We  are,  by  the  Con 
stitution,  made  the  guardian  of  the  money  of  the  country.  For  this  the 
right  of  coining  and  regulating  the  value  of  coins  was  given,  and  we  have 
no  right  whatever  to  receive  or  treat  anything  as  money,  or  the  equiva 
lent  of  money,  the  value  of  which  we  have  no  right  to  regulate.  If  this 
principle  be  true,  and  it  cannot  be  controverted,  I  ask,  What  right  has 
Congress  to  receive  and  treat  the  notes  of  the  state  banks  as  money  ? 
If  the  states  have  the  right  to  incorporate  banks,  what  right  has  Con 
gress  to  regulate  them  or  their  issues  ?  Show  me  the  power  in  the 
Constitution.  If  the  right  be  admitted,  what  are  its  limitations,  and 
how  can  the  right  of  subjecting  them  to  a  bankrupt  law  in  that  case  be 
denied  *  If  one  be  admitted,  the  other  follows  as  a  consequence ;  aud 
yet  those  who  are  most  indignant  against  the  proposition  of  subjecting 
the  state  banks  to  a  bankrupt  law,  are  the  most  clamorous  to  receive 
their  notes,  not  seeing  that  the  one  power  involves  the  other.  I  am 
equally  opposed  to  both,  as  unconstitutional  and  inexpedient.  We  are 
next  told,  to  separate  from  the  banks  is  to  separate  from  the  people. 
The  banks,  then,  are  the  people,  and  the  people  the  banks — united, 
identified,  and  inseparable;  and  as  the  government  belongs  to  the  peo 
ple,  it  follows,  of  course,  according  to  this  argument,  it  belongs  also  to 
the  banks,  and,  of  course,  is  bound  to  do  their  biddings.  I  feel  on  so 
grave  a  subject,  and  in  so  grave  a  body,  an  almost  invincible  repugnance 
in  replying  to  such  arguments :  and  I  shall  hasten  over  the  only  remain 
ing  one  of  the  fraternity  which  I  shall  condescend  to  notice  with  all 


1837.]     SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.       351 

possible  despatch.  They  have  no  right  of  admission  here,  and,  if  I 
were  disposed  to  jest  on  so  solemn  an  occasion,  I  should  say  they  ought 
to  be  driven  from  this  chamber,  under  the  47th  rule.*  The  next  of 
these  formidable  objections  to  the  separation  from  the  banks  is,  that  the 
government,  in  so  doing,  takes  care  of  itself,  and  not  of  the  people. 
Why,  I  had  supposed  that  the  government  belonged  to  the  people  :  that 
it  was  created  by  them  for  their  own  use,  to  promote  their  interest, 
and  secure  their  peace  and  liberty  ;  that,  in  taking  care  of  itself,  it  takes 
the  most  effectual  care  of  the  people  ;  and  in  refusing  all  embarrassing, 
entangling,  and  dangerous  alliances  with  corporations  of  any  description, 
it  was  but  obeying  the  great  law  of  self-preservation.  But  enough  ;  I 
cannot  any  longer  waste  words  on  such  objections.  I  intend  no  disre 
spect  to  those  who  have  urged  them ;  yet  these,  and  arguments  like 
these,  are  mainly  relied  on  to  countervail  the  many  and  formidable  ob 
jections,  drawn  from  the  highest  considerations  that  can  influence  the 
action  of  governments  or  individuals,  none  of  which  have  been  refuted 
and  many  not  even  denied. 

The  senator  from  Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  urged  an  argument  of 
a  very  different  character,  but  which,  in  my  opinion,  he  entirely  failed 
to  establish.  He  asserted  that  the  ground  assumed  on  this  side  was  an 
entire  abandonment  of  a  great  constitutional  function  conferred  by  the 
Constitution  on  Congress.  To  establish  this,  he  laid  down  the  proposi 
tion,  that  Congress  was  bound  to  take  care  of  the  money  of  the  country. 
Agreed ;  and  with  this  view  the  Constitution  confers  on  us  the  right  of 
coining  and  regulating  the  value  of  coins,  in  order  to  supply  the  coun 
try  with  money  of  proper  standard  and  value ;  and  is  it  an  abandon 
ment  of  this  right  to  take  care,  as  this  bill  does,  that  it  shall  not  be 
expelled  from  circulation,  as  far  as  the  fiscal  action  of  this  government 
extends  ?  But  having  taken  this  unquestionable  position,  the  senator 
passed  (by  what  means  he  did  not  condescend  to  explain)  from  taking 
care  of  the  money  of  the  country  to  the  right  of  establishing  a  currency, 
and  then  to  the  right  of  establishing  a  bank  currency,  as  I  understood 
him.  On  both  of  these  points  I  leave  him  in  the  hands  of  the  senator 
from  Pennsylvania  (Mr.  Buchanan),  who,  in  an  able  and  constitutional 
argument,  completely  demolished,  in  my  judgment,  the  position  assumed 
by  the  senator  from  Massachusetts.  I  rejoice  to  hear  such  an  argument 

*  It  is  the  rule  regulating  the  admission  of  persons  in  the  lobby  of 
the  Senate. 


352  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

from  such  a  quarter.  The  return  of  the  great  state  of  Pennsylvania  to 
the  doctrines  of  rigid  construction  and  state  rights  sheds  a  ray  of  light 
on  the  thick  darkness  which  has  long  surrounded  us. 

But  we  are  told  that  there  is  not  gold  and  silver  enough  to  fill  the 
channels  of  circulation,  and  that  prices  would  fall.  Be  it  so.  What  is 
that,  compared  to  the  dangers  which  menace  on  the  opposite  side  ?  But 
are  we  so  certain  that  there  is  not  a  sufficiency  of  the  precious  metals 
for  the  purpose  of  circulation?  Look  at  France,  with  her  abundant 
supply,  with  her  channels  of  circulation  full  to  overflowing  with  coins, 
and  her  flourishing  industry.  It  is  true  that  our  supply  is  insufficient 
at  present  How  could  it  be  otherwise  ?  The  banking  system  has 
degraded  and  expelled  the  metals — driven  them  to  foreign  lands — 
closed  the  mines,  and  converted  their  products  into  costly  vases,  and 
splendid  utensils  and  ornaments,  administering  to  the  pride  and  luxury 
of  the  opulent,  instead  of  being  employed  as  the  standard  of  value,  and 
the  instrument  of  making  exchanges,  as  they  were  manifestly  intended 
mainly  to  be  by  an  all-wise  Providence.  Restore  them  to  their  proper 
functions,  and  they  will  return  from  their  banishment ;  the  mines  will 
again  be  opened,  and  the  gorgeous  splendor  of  wealth  will  again  reas- 
Bume  the  more  humble,  but  useful,  form  of  coins. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  am  not  driven  to  such  alternatives.  I  am  not 
the  enemy,  but  the  friend  of  credit — not  as  the  substitute,  but  the 
associate  and  the  assistant  of  the  metals.  In  that  capacity,  I  hold  credit 
to  possess,  in  many  respects,  a  vast  superiority  over  the  metals  them 
selves.  I  object  to  it  in  the  form  which  it  has  assumed  in  the  banking 
83rstem,  for  reasons  that  are  neither  light  nor  few,  and  that  neither  have 
nor  can  be  answered.  The  question  is  not  whether  credit  can  be  dis 
pensed  with,  but  what  is  its  best  possible  form — the  most  stable,  the 
least  liable  to  abuse,  and  the  most  convenient  and  cheap.  I  threw  out 
some  ideas  on  this  important  subject  in  my  opening  remarks.  I  have 
heard  nothing  to  change  my  opinion.  I  believe  that  government  credit, 
in  the  form  I  suggested,  combines  all  the  requisite  qualities  of  a  credit 
circulation  in  the  highest  degree,  and  also  that  government  ought  not  to 
use  any  other  credit  but  its  own  in  its  financial  operations.  When  the 
senator  from  Massachusetts  made  his  attack  on  my  suggestions,  I  was 
disappointed.  I  expected  argument,  and  he  gave  us  denunciation.  It 
is  often  easy  to  denounce,  when  it  is  hard  to  refute ;  and  when  that 
senator  gives  denunciations  instead  of  arguments,  I  conclude  that  it  is 
because  the  one  is  at  his  command,  and  the  other  not 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      353 

"We  are  told  the  form  I  suggested  is  but  a  repetition  of  the  old  Con 
tinental  money — a  ghost  that  is  ever  conjured  up  by  all  who  wish  to 
give  the  banks  an  exclusive  monopoly  of  government  credit.  The  asser 
tion  is  not  true :  there  is  not  the  least  analogy  between  them.  The  one 
was  a  promise  to  pay  when  there  was  no  revenue,  and  the  other  a 
promise  to  receive  in  the  dues  of  government  when  there  is  an  abundant 
revenue. 

We  are  also  told  that  there  is  no  instance  of  a  government  paper  that 
did  not  depreciate.  In  reply,  I  affirm  that  there  is  none,  assuming  the 
form  I  propose,  that  ever  did  depreciate.  Whenever  a  paper  receiva 
ble  in  the  dues  of  government  had  anything  like  a  fair  trial,  it  has 
succeeded.  Instance  the  case  of  North  Carolina,  referred  to  in  nay- 
opening  remarks.  The  draughts  of  the  treasury  at  this  moment,  with 
all  their  encumbrance,  are  nearly  at  par  with  gold  and  silver ;  and  I 
might  add  the  instance  alluded  to  by  the  distinguished  senator  from 
Kentucky,  in  which  he  admits  that,  as  soon  as  the  excess  of  the  issues 
of  the  Commonwealth  Bank  of  Kentucky  were  reduced  to  the  proper 
point,  its  notes  rose  to  par.  The  case  of  Russia  might  also  be  mentioned. 
In  1827,  she  had  a  fixed  paper  circulation,  in  the  form  of  bank-notes, 
but  which  were  inconvertible,  of  upward  of  $120,000,000,  estimated  in 
the  metallic  ruble,  and  which  had  for  years  remained  without  fluctua 
tion,  having  nothing  to  sustain  it  but  that  it  was  received  in  the  dues  of 
the  government,  and  that,  too,  with  a  revenue  of  only  about  $90,000.000 
annually.  I  speak  on  the  authority  of  a  respectable  traveller.  Other 
instances,  no  doubt,  might  be  added,  but  it  needs  no  such  support. 
How  can  a  paper  depreciate  which  the  government  is  bound  to  receive 
in  all  its  payments,  and  while  those  to  whom  payments  are  to  be  made 
are  under  no  obligation  to  receive  it  2  From  its  nature,  it  can  only 
circulate  when  at  par  with  gold  and  silver  ;  and  if  it  should  depreciate, 
none  could  be  injured  but  the  government. 

But  my  colleague  objects  that  it  would  partake  of  the  increase  and 
decrease  of  the  revenue,  and  would  be  subject  to  greater  expansion  and 
contractions  than  bank-notes  themselves.  He  assumes  that  government 
would  increase  the  -amount  with  the  increase  of  the  revenue,  which  is 
not  probable,  for  the  aid  of  its  credit  would  be  then  less  needed ;  but 
if  it  did,  what  would  be  the  effect  ?  On  the  decrease  of  the  revenue, 
its  bills  would  be  returned  to  the  treasury,  from  which,  for  the  want  of 
demand,  they  could  not  be  reissued ;  and  the  excess,  instead  of  hanging 
on  the  circulation,  as  in  the  case  of  bank-notes,  and  exposing  it  to  catas- 


354  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

trophes  like  the  present,  would  be  gradually  and  silently  withdrawn, 
without  shock  or  injury  to  any  one.  It  has  another  and  striking  ad 
vantage  over  bank  circulation — in  its  superior  cheapness,  as  well  as 
greater  stability  and  safety.  Bank  paper  is  cheap  to  those  who  make 
it,  but  dear,  very  dear,  to  those  who  use  it — fully  as  much  so  as  gold 
and  silver.  It  is  the  little  cost  of  its  manufacture,  and  the  dear  rates 
at  which  it  is  furnished  to  the  community,  which  give  the  great  profit 
to  those  who  have  a  monopoly  of  the  article.  Some  idea  may  be  formed 
of  the  extent  of  the  profit  by  the  splendid  palaces  which  we  see  under 
the  name  of  banking-houses,  and  the  vast  fortunes  which  have  been 
accumulated  in  this  branch  of  business ;  all  of  which  must  ultimately 
be  derived  from  the  productive  powers  of  the  community,  and,  of 
course,  adds  so  much  to  the  cost  of  production.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
credit  of  government,  while  it  would  greatly  facilitate  its  financial  ope 
rations,  would  cost  nothing,  or  next  to  nothing,  both  to  it  and  the  people, 
and,  of  course,  would  add  nothing  to  the  cost  of  production,  which  would 
give  every  branch  of  our  industry,  agriculture,  commerce,  and  manu 
factures,  as  far  as  its  circulation  might  extend,  great  advantages  both 
at  home  and  abroad. 

But  there  remains  another  and  great  advantage.  In  the  event  of 
war,  it  would  open  almost  unbounded  resources  to  carry  it  on,  without 
the  necessity  of  resorting  to  what  I  am  almost  disposed  to  call  a  fraud 
— public  loans.  I  have  already  shown  that  the  loans  of  the  Bank  of 
England  to  the  government  were  very  little  more  than  loaning  back  to 
the  government  its  own  credit ;  and  this  is  more  or  less  true  of  all  loans, 
where  the  banking  system  prevails.  It  was  preeminently  so  in  our 
late  war.  The  circulation  of  the  government  credit,  in  the  shape  of 
bills  receivable  exclusively  with  gold  and  silver  in  its  dues,  and  the 
sales  of  public  lands,  would  dispense  with  the  necessity  of  loans,  by 
increasing  its  bills  with  the  increase  of  taxes.  The  increase  of  taxes, 
and,  of  course,  of  revenue  and  expenditures,  would  be  followed  by  an 
increased  demand  for  government  bills,  while  the  latter  would  furnish 
the  means  of  paying  the  taxes,  without  increasing,  in  the  same  degree, 
the  pressure  on  the  community.  This,  with  a  judicious  system  of  fund 
ing,  at  a  low  rate  of  interest,  would  go  far  to  exempt  the  government 
from  the  necessity  of  contracting  public  loans  in  the  event  of  war. 

I  am  not,  Mr.  President,  ignorant,  in  making  these  suggestions  (I 
wish  them  to  be  considered  only  in  that  light),  to  what  violent  opposi 
tion  every  measure  of  the  kind  must  be  exposed.  Banks  have  been  so 


1837. J      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      355 

long  in  the  possession  of  government  credit,  that  they  very  naturally 
conclude  they  have  an  exclusive  right  to  it,  and  consider  the  withdrawal 
of  it,  even  for  the  use  of  the  goverment  itself,  as  a  positive  injury.  It 
was  my  fortune  to  take  a  stand  on  the  side  of  the  government  'against 
the  banks  during  the  most  trying  period  of  the  late  war — the  winter 
of  1814  and  1815 — and  never  in  my  life  was  I  exposed  to  more  cal 
umny  and  abuse — no,  not  even  on  this  occasion.  It  was  my  first  lesson 
on  the  subject.  I  shall  never  forget  it.  I  propose  to  give  a  very  brief 
narrative  of  the  scenes  through  which  I  then  passed ;  not  with  any 
feeling  of  egotism,  for  I  trust  I  am  incapable  of  that,  but  to  illustrate 
the  truth  of  much  I  have  said,  and  to  snatch  from  oblivion  not  an  un 
important  portion  of  our  financial  history.  I  see  the  senators  from 
Massachusetts  (Mr.  Webster)  and  of  Alabama  (Mr.  King),  who  were 
then  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  in  their  places,  and 
they  can  vouch  for  the  correctness  of  my  narrative,  as  far  as  the  memory 
of  transactions  so  long  passed  will  serve. 

The  finances  of  the  country  had,  at  that  time,  fallen  into  great  con 
fusion.  Mr.  Campbell  had  retired  from  the  head  of  the  treasury,  and 
the  late  Mr.  Dallas  had  succeeded — a  man  of  talents,  bold  and  decisive, 
but  inexperienced  in  the  affairs  of  the  department.  His  first  measure 
to  restore  order,  and  to  furnish  the  supplies  to  carry  on  the  war,  was 
to  recommend  a  bank  of  £50,000,000,  to  be  constituted  almost  exclu 
sively  of  the  new  stocks  which  had  been  issued  during  the  war,  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  old,  which  had  been  issued  before.  The  proposed 
bank  was  authorized  to  make  loans  to  the  government,  and  was  not 
bound  to  pay  specie  during  the  war,  and  for  three  years  after  its  termi 
nation. 

It  so  happened  that  I  did  not  arrive  here  till  some  time  after  the 
commencement  of  the  session,  having  been  detained  by  an  attack  of 
billious  fever.  I  had  taken  a  prominent  part  in  the  declaration  of  the 
war,  and  had  every  motive  and  disposition  to  sustain  the  administra 
tion,  and  to  vote  every  aid  to  carry  on  the  war.  Immediately  after  my 
arrival,  I  had  a  full  conversation  with  Mr.  Dallas,  at  his  request.  I  en 
tertained  very  kind  feelings  towards  him,  and  assured  him,  after  he  had 
explained  his  plan,  that  I  would  give  it  my  early  and  favorable  atten 
tion.  At  that  time  I  had  reflected  but  little  on  the  subject  of  banking. 
Many  of  my  political  friends  expressed  a  desire  that  I  should  take  a 
prominent  part  in  favor  of  the  proposed  bank.  Their  extreme  anxiety 
aroused  my  attention,  and,  being  on  no  committee  (they  had  been  ap- 


356  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

pointed  before  my  arrival),  I  took  up  the  subject  for  a  full  investigation, 
with  every  disposition  to  give  it  my  support.  I  had  not  proceeded  far 
before  I  was  struck  with  the  extraordinary  character  of  the  project:  a 
bank  of  §50,000,000,  whose  capital  was  to  consist  almost  exclusively 
of  government  credit  in  the  shape  of  stock,  and  not  bound  to  pay  its 
debts  during  the  war,  and  for  three  years  afterward,  to  furnish  the  gov 
ernment  with  loans  to  carry  on  the  war  !  I  saw  at  once  that  the  effect 
of  the  arrangement  would  be,  that  government  would  borrow  back  its 
own  credit,  and  pay  six  per  cent  per  annum  for  what  they  had  already 
paid  eight  or  nine.  It  was  impossible  for  me  to  give  it  my  support 
under  any  pressure,  however  great.  I  felt  the  difficulty  of  my  situation, 
not  only  in  opposing  the  leading  measure  of  the  administration  at  such 
a  crisis,  but,  what  was  far  more  responsible,  to  suggest  one  of  my  own, 
that  would  afford  relief  to  the  embarrassed  treasury.  I  cast  my  eyes 
around,  and  soon  saw  that  the  government  should  use  its  own  credit 
directly,  without  the  intervention  of  a  bank ;  which  I  proposed  to  do 
in  the  form  of  treasury  notes,  to  be  issued  in  the  operations  of  the  gov 
ernment,  and  to  be  funded  in  the  subscription  to  the  stock  of  the  bank. 
Treasury  notes  were,  at  that  time,  below  par,  even  with  bank  paper. 
The  opposition  to  them  was  so  great  on  the  part  of  the  banks,  that  they 
refused  to  receive  them  on  deposit,  or  payment,  at  par  with  their  notes ; 
while  the  government,  on  its  part,  received  and  paid  away  notes  of  the 
banks  at  par  with  its  own.  Such  was  the  influence  of  the  banks,  and 
to  such  degradation  did  the  government,  in  its  weakness,  submit.  All 
this  influence  I  had  to  encounter  with  the  entire  weight  of  the  adminis 
tration  thrown  into  the  same  scale.  I  hesitated  not.  I  saw  the  path 
of  duty  clearly,  and  determined  to  tread  it,  as  sharp  and  rugged  as  it 
was.  When  the  bill  came  up,  I  moved  my  amendment,  the  main 
features  of  which  were,  that,  instead  of  government  stock  already  issued, 
the  capital  of  the  bank  should  consist  of  funded  treasury  notes ;  and 
that,  instead  of  a  mere  paper  machine,  it  should  be  a  specie-paying 
bank,  so  as  to  be  an  ally  instead  of  an  opponent,  in  restoring  the  cur 
rency  to  a  sound  condition  on  the  return  of  peace.  These  were,  with 
me,  indispensable  conditions.  I  accompanied  my  amendment  with  a 
short  speech  of  fifteen  or  twenty  minutes,  and  so  overpowering  was  the 
force  of  truth,  that,  notwithstanding  the  influence  of  the  administration, 
backed  by  the  money  power,  and  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means, 
which  was  unanimous,  with  one  exception,  as  I  understood,  my  amend 
ment  prevailed  by  a  large  majority ;  but  it,  in  turn,  failed — the  opposi- 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      357 

tion,  the  adherents  of  the  administration,  and  those  who  had  constitu 
tional  scruples,  combined  against  it.  Then  followed  various,  but  unsuc 
cessful,  attempts  to  charter  a  bank.  One  was  vetoed  by  the  President, 
and  another  was  lost  by  the  casting  vote  of  the  speaker  (Mr.  Cheves). 
After  a  large  portion  of  the  session  was  thus  unsuccessfully  consumed, 
a  caucus  was  called,  in  order  to  agree  on  some  plan,  to  which  I  and  the 
few  friends  who  still  adhered  to  me  after  such  hard  service,  were  espe 
cially  invited.  We,  of  course,  attended.  The  plan  of  compromise  was 
unfolded,  which  approached  much  nearer  to  our  views,  but  which  was 
still  objectionable  in  some  features.  I  objected,  and  required  farther 
concessions,  which  were  refused,  and  was  told  the  bill  could  be  passed 
without  us ;  at  which  I  took  up  my  hat  and  bade  good-night.  The  bill 
was  introduced  in  the  Senate,  and  speedily  passed  that  body.  On  the 
second  reading,  I  rose  and  made  a  few  remarks,  in  which  I  entreated 
the  house  to  remember  that  they  were  about  to  vote  for  the  measure 
against  their  conviction,  as  had  been  frequently  expressed ;  and  that, 
in  so  doing,  they  acted  under  a  supposed  necessity,  which  had  been 
created  by  those  who  expected  to  profit  by  the  measure.  I  then  re 
minded  them  of  the  danger  of  acting  under  such  pressure ;  and  I  said 
that  they  were  so  sensible  of  the  truth  of  what  I  uttered,  that,  if  peace 
should  arrive  before  the  passage  of  the  bill,  it  would  not  receive  the 
support  of  fifteen  members.  I  concluded  by  saying  that  I  would  re 
serve  what  I  intended  to  say  on  the  question  of  the  passage  of  the  bill, 
when  I  would  express  my  opinion  at  length,  and  appeal  to  the  country. 
My  objections,  as  yet,  had  not  gone  to  the  people,  as  nothing  that. I  had 
said  had  been  reported — such  was  my  solicitude  to  defeat  the  bill  with 
out  extending  our  divisions  beyond  the  walls  of  the  house,  in  the  then 
critical  condition  of  the  country.  My  object  was  to  arrest  the  measure, 
and  not  to  weaken  confidence  in  the  administration. 

In  making  the  supposition,  I  had  not  the  slightest  anticipation  of 
peace.  England  had  been  making  extensive  preparations  for  the  ensu 
ing  campaign,  and  had  made  a  vigorous  attack  on  New  Orleans,  but 
had  just  been  repelled ;  but,  by  a  most  remarkable  coincidence,  an 
opportunity  (as  strange  as  it  may  seem)  was  afforded  to  test  the  truth 
of  what  I  have  said.  Late  in  the  evening  of  the  day  I  met  Mr.  Stur- 
ges.  then  a  member  of  Congress  from  Connecticut.  He  said  that  he 
had  some  information  which  he  could  not  withhold  from  me ;  that  a 
treaty  of  peace  had  been  made ;  and  that  it  had  actually  arrived  in 
!Me\v  York,  and  would  be  here  the  next  day,  so  that  I  would  have  an 


358  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

opportunity  of  testing  the  truth  of  my  prediction.  He  added,  that  his 
brother,  who  had  a  mercantile  house  in  New  York,  had  forwarded  the 
information  to  him  by  express,  and  that  he  had  forwarded  the  informa 
tion  to  connected  houses  in  Southern  cities,  with  direction  to  purchase 
the  great  staples  in  that  quarter,  and  that  he  wished  me  to  consider 
the  information  as  confidential.  I  thanked  him  for  the  intelligence,  and 
promised  to  keep  it  to  myself.  The  rumor,  however,  got  out,  and  the 
next  day  an  attempt  was  made  to  pass  through  the  bill;  but  the  house 
was  unwilling  to  act  till  it  could  ascertain  whether  a  treaty  had  been 
made.  It  arrived  in  the  course  of  the  day,  when,  on  my  motion,  it  was 
laid  on  the  table ;  and  I  had  the  gratification  of  receiving  the  thanks 
of  many  for  defeating  the  bill,  who,  a  short  time  before,  were  almost 
ready  to  cut  my  throat  for  my  persevering  opposition  to  the  measure. 
An  offer  was  then  made  to  me  to  come  to  my  terms,  which  I  refused, 
declaring  that  I  would  rise  in  my  demand,  and  would  agree  to  no  bill 
which  should  not  be  formed  expressly  with  the  view  to  the  speedy 
restoration  of  specie  payments.  It  was  afterward  postponed,  on  the 
conviction  that  it  could  not  be  so  modified  as  to  make  it  acceptable  to 
a  majority.  This  was  my  first  lesson  on  banks.  It  has  made  a  dura 
ble  impression  on  my  mind. 

My  colleague,  in  the  course  of  his  remarks,  said  he  regarded  this 
measure  as  a  secret  war  waged  against  the  banks.  I  am  sure  he  could 
not  intend  to  attribute  such  motives  to  me.  I  wage  no  war,  secret  or 
open,  against  the  existing  institutions.  They  have  been  created  by  the 
legislation  of  the  states,  and  are  alone  responsible  to  the  states.  I 
hold  them  not  answerable  for  the  present  state  of  things,  which  has 
been  brought  about  under  the  silent  operation  of  time,  without  attract 
ing  notice  or  disclosing  its  danger.  Whatever  legal  or  constitutional 
rights  they  possess  under  their  charters  ought  to  be  respected ;  and,  if 
attacked,  I  would  defend  them  as  resolutely  as  I  now  oppose  the  sys 
tem.  Against  that  I  wage,  not  secret,  but  open  and  uncompromising 
hostilities,  originating  not  in  opinions  recently  or  hastily  formed.  I 
have  long  seen  the  true  character  of  the  system,  its  tendency  and  des 
tiny,  and  have  looked  forward  for  many  years,  as  many  of  my  friends 
know,  to  the  crisis  in  the  midst  of  which  we  now  are.  My  ardent 
wish  has  been  to  effect  a  gradual  change  in  the  banking  system,  by 
which  the  crisis  might  be  passed  without  a  shock,  if  possible ;  but  I 
have  been  resolved  for  many  years,  that  should  it  arrive  in  my  time,  I 
"would  discharge  my  duty,  however  great  the  difficulty  and  danger. 


1837.]      SEPARATION  OF  GOVERNMENT  FROM  BANKS.      359 

I  have  thus  far  faithfully  performed  it,  according  to  the  best  of  my 
abilities,  and,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  shall  persist,  regardless  of 
every  obstacle,  with  equal  fidelity,  to  the  end. 

He  who  does  not  see  that  the  credit  system  is  on  the  eve  of  a  great 
revolution,  has  formed  a  very  imperfect  conception  of  the  past  and  an 
ticipation  of  the  future.  What  changes  it  is  destined  to  undergo,  and 
what  new  form  it  will  ultimately  assume,  are  concealed  in  the  womb 
of  time,  and  not  given  us  to  foresee.  But  we  may  perceive  in  the  pres 
ent  many  of  the  elements  of  the  existing  system  which  must  be  ex 
pelled,  and  others  which  must  enter  it  in  its  renewed  form. 

In  looking  at  the  elements  at  work,  I  hold  it  certain,  that  in  the  pro 
cess  there  will  be  a  total  and  final  separation  of  the  credit  of  govern 
ment  and  that  of  individuals,  which  have  been  so  long  blended.  The 
good  of  society,  and  the  interests  of  both,  imperiously  demand  it,  and  the 
growing  intelligence  of  the  age  will  enforce  it.  It  is  unfair,  unjust, 
unequal,  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  free  institutions,  and  corrupting  in  its 
consequences.  How  far  the  credit  of  government  may  be  used  in  a 
separate  form,  with  safety  and  convenience,  remains  to  be  seen.  To 
the  extent  of  its  fiscal  action,  limited  strictly  to  the  function  of  the  col 
lection  and  disbursement  of  its  revenue,  and  in  the  form  I  have  sug 
gested,  I  am  of  the  impression  it  may  be  both  safely  and  conveniently 
used,  and  with  great  incidental  advantages  to  the  whole  community. 
Beyond  that  limit  I  see  no  safety,  and  much  danger. 

What  form  individual  credit  will  assume  after  the  separation,  is  still 
more  uncertain,  but  I  see  clearly  that  the  existing  fetters  that  restrain 
it  will  be  thrown  off.  The  credit  of  an  individual  is  his  property,  and 
belongs  to  him  as  much  as  his  land  and  houses,  to  use  it  as  he  pleases, 
with  the  single  restriction,  which  is  imposed  on  all  our  rights,  that  it  is 
not  to  be  used  so  as  to  injure  others.  What  limitations  this  restriction 
may  prescribe,  time  and  experience  will  show;  but,  whatever  they 
may  be,  they  ought  to  assume  the  character  of  general  laws,  obligatory 
on  all  alike,  and  open  to  all ;  and  under  the  provisions  of  which  all 
may  be  at  liberty  to  use  their  credit,  jointly  or  separately,  as  freely  as 
they  now  use  their  land  and  houses,  without  any  preference  by  special 
acts,  in  any  form  or  shape,  to  one  over  another.  Everything  like  monop 
oly  must  ultimately  disappear  before  the  process  which  has  begun  will 
finally  terminate. 

I  see,  not  less  clearly,  that,  in  the  process,  a  separation  will  take  place 
between  the  use  of  capital  and  the  use  of  credit.  They  are  wholly  dif  • 


360  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1837, 

ferent,  and,  under  the  growing  intelligence  of  the  times,  cannot  mucft 
longer  remain  confounded  in  their  present  state  of  combination.  They 
are  as  distinct  as  a  loan  and  an  endorsement ;  in  fact,  the  one  is  but 
giving  to  another  the  use  of  our  capital,  and  the  other  the  use  of  our 
credit ;  and  yet,  so  dissimilar  are  they,  that  we  daily  see  the  most  pru 
dent  individuals  lending  their  credit  for  nothing,  in  the  form  of  endorse 
ment  or  security,  who  would  not  loan  the  most  inconsiderable  sum  with 
out  interest.  But  as  dissimilar  as  they  are,  they  are  completely  con 
founded  in  banking  operations,  which  is  one  of  the  main  sources  of  the 
profit,  and  the  consequent  dangerous  flow  of  capital  irt  that  direction,. 
A  bank  discount,  instead  of  a  loan,  is  rery  little  more,  as  I  have  shown,  than 
a  mere  exchange  of  credit — an  exchange  of  the  joint  credit  of  the  drawer 
and  endorser  of  the  note  discounted  for  the  credit  of  the  bank  in  the 
shape  of  its  own  note.  In  the  exchange,  the  bank  insures  the  parties 
to  the  note  discounted,  and  the  community,  which  is  the  loser  if  the  bank 
fails,  virtually  insures  the  bank  ;  and  yet,  by  confounding  this  exchange 
of  credit  with  the  use  of  capital,  the  bank  is  permitted  to  charge  an  in 
terest  for  this  exchange,  rather  greater  than  an  individual  is  permitted 
to  charge  for  a  loan,  to  the  great  gain  of  the  bank  and  loss  to  the  com 
munity.  I  say  loss,  for  the  community  can  never  enjoy  the  great  and 
full  benefit  of  the  credit  system,  till  loans  and  credit  are  considered  as 
entirely  distinct  in  their  nature,  and  the  compensation  for  the  use  of 
each  be  adjusted  to-  their  respective  nature  and  character.  Nothing- 
would  give  a  greater  impulse  to  all  the  business  of  society.  The  su 
perior  cheapness  of  credit  would  add  incalculably  to  the  productive 
powers  of  the  community,  when  the  immense  gains  which  are  now  made 
by  confounding  them  shall  come  in  aid  of  production. 

Whatever  other  changes  the  credit  system  is  destined  to  undergo, 
these  are  certainly  some  which  it  must ;  but  when,  and  how  the  revolu 
tion  will  end — whether  it  is  destined  to  be  sudden  and  convulsive,  or 
gradual  and  free  from  shock,  time  alone  can  disclose.  Much  will  depend 
on  the  decision  of  the  present  question,  and  the  course  which  the  advocate? 
of  the  system  will  pur  sue.  If  the  separation  takes  place,  and  is  acquiesced 
in  by  those  interested  in  the  system,  the  prospect  will  be,  that  it  will 
gradually  and  quietly  run  down,  without  shock  or  convulsions,  which  is 
my  sincere  prayer ;  but  if  not — if  the  reverse  shall  be  insisted  on,  and; 
above  all,  if  it  should  be  effected  through  a  great  political  struggle  (it 
can  only  be  so  effected),  the  revolution  would  be  violent  and  convulsive. 
A  great  and  thorough  change  must  take  place.  It  is  wholly 


1837.]        SEVERITY  OF  THE  PRESSURE.  361 

ble.  The  public  attention  begins  to  be  roused  throughout  the  civilized 
world  to  this  all-absorbing  subject.  There  is  nothing  left  to  be  controll 
ed  but  the  mode  and  manner,  and  it  is  better  for  all  that  it  should  be 
gradual  and  quiet  than  the  reverse.  All  the  rest  is  destiny. 

I  have  now,  Mr.  President,  said  what  I  intended,  without  reserve  or 
disguise.  In  taking  the  stand  I  have,  I  change  no  relation,  personal  or 
political,  nor  alter  any  opinion  I  have  heretofore  expressed  or  entertained. 
I  desire  nothing  from  the  government  or  the  people.  My  only  am 
bition  is  to  do  my  duty,  and  shall  follow  whatever  that  may  lead,  re 
gardless  alike  of  attachments  or  antipathies,  personal  or  political.  I 
know  full  well  the  responsibility  I  have  assumed.  I  see  clearly  the 
magnitude  and  the  hazard  of  the  crisis,  and  the  danger  of  confiding  the 
execution  of  measures  in  which  I  take  so  deep  a  responsibility,  to  those 
in  whom  I  have  no  reason  to  have  any  special  confidence.  But  all  this 
deters  me  not  when  I  believe  that  the  permanent  interest  of  the  coun 
try  is  involved.  My  course  is  fixed.  I  go  forward.  If  the  adminis 
tration  recommend  what  I  approve  on  this  great  question,  I  will  cheer 
fully  give  my  support ;  if  not,  I  shall  oppose ;  but,  in  opposing,  I  shall 
feel  bound  to  suggest  what  I  believe  to  be  the  proper  measure,  and 
which  I  shall  be  ready  to  back,  be  the  responsibility  what  it  may,  look 
ing  only  to  the  country,  and  not  stopping  to  estimate  whether  the  bene 
fit  shall  inure  either  to  the  administration  or  the  opposition. 

The  time  to  which  Mr.  Calhoun  had  looked  forward 
with  so  many  ardent  hopes  and  eager  expectations  had 
at  length  arrived.  The  day  of  deliverance — of  deliver 
ance  from  the  banking  system — was  at  hand.  But  it 
dawned  in  the  midst  of  sorrow  and  gloom.  He  had 
often  predicted  the  commercial  revulsion  experienced 
in  1837,  yet  the  severity  of  the  blow  exceeded  his  ex 
pectations.  The  shock  convulsed  the  whole  nation. 
Every  commercial  interest  staggered,  or  was  prostrated 
before  it.  Private  individuals,  banks  and  chartered 
companies,  and  many  of  the  state  governments  even, 
were  brought  to  the  verge  or  plunged  into  the  abyss  of 
bankruptcy.  A  fictitious  credit  system  had  been  built 

16 


362  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1837. 

upon  the  surplus  revenue,  which,  in  the  vaults  of  the 
deposit  banks,  had  served  as  the  basis  of  immense  loans 
and  consequent  indebtedness.  The  legitimate  results 
of  the  high  tariff  policy  were  now  witnessed.  The  time 
for  payment  came — it  could  not  be  evaded  or  postponed 
— and  the  frail  fabric  toppled  down  upon  the  heads  of 
those  who  had  reared  it.  The  stimulus  had  been  far 
too  powerful,  and  the  reaction  was  terrible  to  witness. 

But  the  evil  was  not  without  good.  The  effect  of  the 
resolution  of  1816  and  the  deposit  act,  by  which  the 
notes  of  none  but  specie-paying  banks  could  be  received 
in  payment  of  government  dues,  was  promptly  to  sever 
the  connection  between  the  government  and  the  banks, 
because  the  latter  had  suspended  specie  payments 
throughout  the  country.  Mr.  Calhoun  had  never  re 
garded  the  connection  with  favor,  and  he  was  the  last 
man  to  renew  it  when  it  had  once  been  broken  off,  at 
least  when  the  country  was  at  peace,  and  abounded  in 
so  many  of  the  elements  of  prosperity. 

The  general  government  itself  did  not  escape  unscath 
ed.  So  far  as  its  interests  were  affected,  the  distribu 
tion  of  the  revenue  among  the  states  operated  unfavor 
ably,  both  for  the  reason,  that  so  large  an  amount  of 
the  basis  of  the  currency  being  withdrawn,  individual 
debtors  of  the  United  States  dependent  upon  it  were 
rendered  bankrupt,  and  because,  if  the  surplus  had  been 
expended  in  the  purchase  of  state  stocks,  this  conse 
quence  would  not  have  been  so  immediate,  and  the 
stocks  might  have  been  used  to  sustain  the  government. 
But  the  surplus  was  no  longer  in  the  treasury,  and  resort 
was  therefore  had  to  treasury  notes,  and  ultimately  to 
loans.  Yet  this  is  an  argument  rather  as  to  the  time 


1837.]          INDEPENDENT  TREASURY.  363 

than  as  to  the  effect,  of  certain  causes,  for  that  was  sure 
to  come  sooner  or  later,  whatever  policy  had  been 
adopted. 

To  return  to  the  events  of  the  extra  session  in  1837 : 
On  the  14th  of  September,  Mr.  Wright  of  New  York, 
as  the  chairman  of  the  committee  on  finance,  reported 
a  bill,  as  recommended  by  Mr.  Van  Buren,  providing 
for  the  divorce  of  bank  and  state.  In  its  original  shape, 
the  bill  contained  no  provision  whatsoever  in  regard  to 
the  character  of  the  funds  to  be  thereafter  received  by 
government.  Mr.  Calhoun  was  not  hostile  to  paper 
money,  as  all  his  speeches  on  this  question  most  con 
clusively  show  ;  he  thought  the  use  of  credit  in  this  way 
to  be  often  highly  desirable,  not  to  say  necessary,  in 
business  transactions  between  individuals.  But  he  was 
totally  opposed  to  the  reception  of  paper  money  by  the 
government,  unless  it  were  of  its  own  creation,  such  as 
treasury  notes  or  something  of  a  similar  character. 
When  the  bill  of  Mr.  Wright  came  before  the  Senate, 
he  expressed  his  fears  that  there  existed  a  design  on  the 
part  of  the  administration  to  restore  the  connection  with 
the  banks  by  receiving  their  money.  Mr.  Wright  un 
equivocally  disavowed  this  intention,  and  Mr.  Calhoun 
then  prepared  an  amendment,  at  the  suggestion  of  the 
friends  of  the  administration,  providing  for  the  collec 
tion  of  the  public  dues  in  specie — the  only  constitutional 
currency.*  In  favor  of  this  amendment,  his  second 
speech,  heretofore  given,  advocating  an  entire  separa 
tion  of  the  government  from  the  banks,  was  delivered. 

Two  counter  propositions  were  brought  forward  ;  the 
reincorporation  of  a  national  bank,  by  the  ultra  Whigs ; 

*  "  Madison  Papers,"  (Debates  in  the  Convention)  pp.  378,  435. 


364  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

and  a  system  of  special  deposits  with  the  state  banks, 
by  a  small  faction  which  had  cleaved  off  from  the  Re 
publican  or  Democratic  party  and  followed  the  lead  of 
Mr.  Rives,  of  Virginia.  The  bank  project  was  lost  by 
a  vote  of  more  than  two  to  one,  Mr.  Calhoun  voting 
with  the  majority  against  it ;  and  Mr.  Rives'  plan  was 
defeated  by  a  vote  of  twenty-six  to  twenty-two.  The 
Independent  Treasury  bill  then  passed  the  Senate  with 
the  vote  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  but  failed  in  the  House. 

At  the  regular  session  commencing  in  December,  the 
Sub- Treasury  plan,  as  it  was  termed  by  its  opponents, 
was  again  the  prominent  subject  of  debate  and  con 
sideration.  Mr.  Wright  once  more  reported  a  bill 
more  perfect  in  its  details  than  that  presented  at  the 
extra  session,  and  containing  the  specie  clause.  This 
bill  was  framed  expressly  with  a  view  to  meet  Mr. 
Calhoun's  wishes,  and  he  gave  it  his  cordial  support. 
He  took  a  prominent  part  in  the  debate,  and  advocated 
the  passage  of  the  bill  in  a  speech  delivered  on  the  15th 
of  February,  1838,  presenting  an  able  and  lucid  array 
of  facts  and  arguments  in  its  favor ;  and  he  subse 
quently  defended  it  against  the  attacks  of  Mr.  Webster 
and  Mr.  Clay,  in  two  speeches  made  in  reply  to  those 
senators.  Mr.  Rives'  plan  was  now  supported  by  the 
united  opposition,  consisting  of  Whigs  and  Conserva 
tives,  for  the  reason  that  all  hope  of  securing  the  incor 
poration  of  a  national  bank  had  been  abandoned  ;  but 
the  attempt  to  substitute  it  for  Mr.  Wright's  bill,  was 
successfully  resisted.  Public  opinion,  however,  was 
not  yet  arrayed  on  the  side  of  this  great  measure ;  on 
the  contrary,  the  misrepresentations  as  to  its  character 
industriously  made  by  the  friends  of  the  banking  and 


1838.J  ATTACKS  UPON  HIM.  365 

stock  interests,  had  produced  a  strong  feeling  against  it 
even  among  a  considerable  portion  of  the  friends  of  the 
administration  who  afterward  approved  it.  Several  of 
the  state  legislatures  had  instructed  their  senators  to 
oppose  the  specie  clause,  and  it  was  finally  stricken  out 
against  the  earnest  remonstrances  of  Mr.  Calhoun. 
He  contended  that  the  bill  would  prove  a  complete 
abortion  without  this  clause,  and  presented  this  position 
with  so  much  ability  that  no  one  attempted  to  confute 
his  arguments,  which  were  subsequently  approved  by 
the  whole  Republican  party. 

This  bill  failed  to  become  a  law,  and  at  the  ensuing 
session  a  similar  bill  was  also  defeated.  But  in  Decem 
ber,  1839,  a  new  House  of  Representatives  came 
together,  and  there  had  been  several  changes  in  the 
Senate.  The  Independent  Treasury  was  this  time 
brought  forward  under  more  favorable  auspices,  and  a 
bill  again  passed  the  Senate  containing  the  specie  clause, 
with  the  vote  of  Mr.  Calhoun.  It  was  sustained  in  the 
House,  and  on  the  4th  day  of  July,  1840,  was  signed  by 
the  President. 

Mr.  Calhoun's  course  with  reference  to  the  separation 
of  the  government  from  the  banks,  though  perfectly 
consistent  with  his  previous  life  and  with  his  well- 
known  and  often  expressed  views  upon  the  subject  of 
the  currency,  did  not  escape  the  criticism  and  censure 
of  the  Whig  party.  In  his  speech  in  1834,  on  Mr. 
Webster's  motion  to  renew  the  charter  of  the  United 
States  Bank,  he  emphatically  declared,  that  he  was  the 
partisan  of  no  class — nor  of  either  political  party,  "  I 
am  neither  of  the  opposition  nor  administration,"  said 
he.  "  If  I  act  with  the  former  in  any  instance,  it  is 


366  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

because  I  approve  of  their  course  on  the  particular 
occasion,  and  I  shall  always  be  happy  to  act  with  them 
when  I  do  approve.  If  I  oppose  the  administration,  if 
I  desire  to  see  power  change  bands,  it  is  because  I  dis 
approve  of  the  general  course  of  those  in  authority." 

Yet  in  the  face  of  this  declaration,  and  of  the  fact 
that  he  had  never  attended  the  political  caucuses  or 
meetings  of  the  opposition,  he  was  charged  with  having 
gone  over  to  the  enemy — to  the  administration  party. 
So  long  as  these  attacks  were  confined  to  the  public 
press  he  took  no  notice  of  them,  but  when  Mr.  Clay 
repeated  the  charge  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate,  and 
attempted  to  chastise  him  by  \vord  of  mouth,  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  felt  bound  to  notice  it,  and  in  his  reply  to  the 
senator  from  Kentucky,  before  alluded  to,  he  gave 
utterance  to  his  feelings  in  a  strain  of  indignant  elo 
quence  never  surpassed  in  that  chamber. 

"  Mr.  Calhoun,"  said  a  writer  in  the  Democratic 
Review*  alluding  to  this  debate,  "has  evidently  taken 
Demosthenes  for  his  model  as  a  speaker — or  rather,  I 
suppose,  he  has  studied,  while  young,  his  orations  with 
great  admiration,  until  they  produced  a  decided  im 
pression  upon  his  mind.  His  recent  speech  in  defence 
of  himself  against  the  attacks  of  Mr.  Clay,  is  precisely 
on  the  plan  of  the  famous  oration  De  Corona,  delivered 
by  the  great  Athenian,  in  vindication  of  himself  from 
the  elaborate  and  artful  attacks  of  yEschines.  While 
the  one  says  :  '  Athenians  !  to  you  I  appeal,  my  judges 
and  my  witnesses  !' — the  other  says  :  '  In  proof  of  this, 
I  appeal  to  you,  senators,  my  witnesses  and  my  judges 
on  this  occasion  !'  ^Eschines  accused  Demosthenes  of 
*  April  No.,  1838. 


1838.]  REPLY  TO  MR.  CLAY.  367 

having  received  a  bribe  from  Philip,  and  the  latter  re 
torted  by  saying  that  the  other  had  accused  him  of 
doing  what  he  himself  had  notoriously  done.  Mr.  Clay 
says,  that  Mr.  Calhoun  had  gone  over,  and  he  left  to 
time  to  disclose  his  motive.  Mr.  Calhoun  retorts : 
"  Leave  it  to  time  to  disclose  my  motive  for  going  over  ! 
I,  who  have  changed  no  opinion,  abandoned  no  princi 
ple,  and  deserted  no  party  ;  I,  who  have  stood  still  and 
maintained  my  ground  against  every  difficulty,  to  be 
told  that  it  is  left  to  time  to  disclose  my  motive !  The 
imputation  sinks  to  the  earth,  with  the  groundless  charge 
on  which  it  rests.  I  stamp  it,  with  scorn,  in  the  dust. 
I  pick  up  the  dart,  which  fell  harmless  at  my  feet.  1 
hurl  it  back.  What  the  senator  charges  on  me  unjustly, 
he  has  actually  done.  He  went  over  on  a  memorable 
occasion,*  and  did  not  leave  it  to  time  to  disclose  his 
motive.'" 

Other  charges  made  by  Mr.  Clay  were  repelled  in 
similar  language  by  Mr.  Calhoun  ;  and  his  conduct  was 
justified,  his  consistency  maintained,  and  his  political 
position  explained,  with  great  clearness  and  ability. 
He  said  that  Mr.  Clay  had  admitted  he  once  bore  a 
character  for  stern  fidelity,  but  insinuated  that  it  had 
now  been  forfeited.  He  replied,  that  if  he  were  to 
select  an  instance  on  which,  above  all  others,  to  rest 
his  claim  to  such  a  character,  it  would  be  his  course  at 
this  crisis.  A  powerful  party  taking  advantage  of  the 
pecuniary  embarrassments  of  the  country  to  displace 
the  administration  would  be  opposed  to  him,  and  he 

*  In  allusion  to  the  course  of  Mr.  Clay,  in  the  winter  of  1825,  with 
reference  to  the  election  of  Mr.  Adams,  and  his  acceptance  of  the  office 
of  Secretary  of  State. 


368  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

should  also  incur  the  displeasure  of  the  whole  banking 
interest,  with  the  exception  of  some  of  the  southern 
banks.  Many  State  Rights  men,  too,  for  whom  he 
cherished  a  brother's  love,  would  not  go  with  him. 
"  But  I  saw  before  me,"  he  said,  "the  path  of  duty ;  and, 
though  rugged  and  hedged  on  all  sides  with  these  and 
many  other  difficulties,  I  did  not  hesitate  a  moment  to 
take  it.  Yes,  alone,  as  the  senator  sneeringly  says. 
After  I  had  made  up  my  mind  as  to  my  course,  in  a 
conversation  with  a  friend  about  the  responsibility 
I  would  assume,  he  remarked  that  my  own  state  might 
desert  me.  I  replied  that  it  was  not  impossible ;  but 
the  result  has  proved  that  I  under-estimated  the  intelli 
gence*  and  patriotism  of  my  virtuous  and  noble  state.  I 
ask  her  pardon  for  the  distrust  implied  in  my  answer ; 
but  I  ask,  with  assurance  it  will  be  granted,  on  the 
grounds  I  shall  put  it — that,  in  being  prepared  to  sacri 
fice  her  confidence,  as  dear  to  me  as  light  and  life, 
rather  than  disobey,  on  this  great  question,  the  dictates 
of  my  judgment  and  conscience,  I  proved  myself  not 
unworthy  of  being  her  representative. 

"  But  if  the  senator,  in  attributing  to  me  stern  fidelity, 
meant,  not  devotion  to  principle,  but  to  party,  and  espe 
cially  the  party  of  which  he  is  so  prominent  a  member, 
my  answer  is,  that  I  never  belonged  to  his  party,  nor 
owed  it  any  fidelity;  and,  of  course,  could  forfeit  in  ref 
erence  to  it,  no  character  for  fidelity.  It  is  true,  we  act 
ed  in  concert  against  what  we  believed  to  be  the  usurpa 
tions  of  the  executive ;  and  it  is  true  that,  during  the  time, 
I  saw  much  to  esteem  in  those  with  whom  I  acted,  and 
contracted  friendly  relations  with  many,  which  I  shall 
not  be  the  first  to  forget.  It  is  also  true  that  a  common 


1838.]  REPLY  TO  MR.  CLAY.  369 

party  designation  was  applied  to  the  opposition  in  the 
aggregate,  not,  however,  with  my  approbation ;  but  it 
is  no  less  true  that  it  was  universally  known  that  it 
consisted  of  two  distinct  parties,  dissimilar  in  principle 
and  policy,  except  in  relation  to  the  object  for  which 
they  had  united :  the  National  Republican  party,  and 
the  portion  of  the  State  Rights  party  which  had  sepa 
rated  from  the  administration,  on  the  ground  that  it  had 
departed  from  the  true  principles  of  the  original  party. 
That  I  belonged  exclusively  to  that  detached  portion, 
and  to  neither  the  opposition  nor  administration  party, 
I  prove  by  my  explicit  declaration,  contained  in  one 
of  the  extracts  read  from  my  speech  on  the  currency 
in  1834.  That  the  party  generally,  and  the  state  which 
I  represent  in  part,  stood  aloof  from  both  of  the  parties, 
may  be  established  from  the  fact  that  they  refused  to 
mingle  in  the  party  and  political  contests  of  the  day. 
My  state  withheld  her  electoral  vote  in  two  successive 
presidential  elections ;  and,  rather  than  bestow  it  on 
either  the  senator  from  Kentucky,  or  the  distinguished 
citizen  whom  he  opposed,  in  the  first  of  those  elections, 
she  threw  her  vote  on  a  patriotic  citizen  of  Virginia, 
since  deceased,  of  her  own  politics,  but  who  was  not  a 
candidate ;  and,  in  the  last,  she  refused  to  give  it  to  the 
worthy  senator  from  Tennessee  near  me  (Judge  White), 
though  his  principles  and  views  of  policy  approached 
so  much  nearer  to  hers  than  that  of  the  party  to  which 
the  senator  from  Kentucky  belongs.  But,  suppose  the 
fact  was  otherwise,  and  that  the  two  parties  had  blended 
so  as  to  form  one,  and  that  I  owed  to  the  united  party 
as  much  fidelity  as  I  do  to  that  to  which  I  exclusively 
belonged ;  even  on  that  supposition,  no  conception  of 

16* 


370  JOHN    CALDWELL   CALHOUN.  [1838. 

party  fidelity  could  have  controlled  my  course  on  the 
present  occasion.  I  am  not  among  those  who  pay  no 
regard  to  party  obligations ;  on  the  contrary,  I  place 
fidelity  to  party  among  the  political  virtues,  but  I  assign 
to  it  a  limited  sphere.  I  confine  it  to  matters  of  detail 
and  arrangement,  and  to  minor  questions  of  policy. 
Beyond  that,  on  all  questions  involving  principles,  or 
measures  calculated  to  affect  materially  the  permanent 
interests  of  the  country,  I  look  only  to  God  and  country. 
"  And  here,  Mr.  President,  I  avail  myself  of  the  op 
portunity  to  declare  my  present  political  position,  so 
that  there  may  be  no  mistake  hereafter.  I  belong  to 
the  old  Republican  State  Rights  party  of  1798.  To 
that,  and  that  alone,  I  owe  fidelity,  and  by  that  I  shall 
stand  through  every  change,  and  in  spite  of  every  dif 
ficulty.  Its  creed  is  to  be  found  in  the  Kentucky  Res 
olutions,  and  Virginia  Resolutions  and  Report;  and 
its  policy  is  to  confine  the  action  of  this  government 
within  the  narrowest  limits  compatible  with  the  peace 
and  security  of  these  states,  and  the  objects  for  which 
the  Union  was  expressly  formed.  I,  as  one  of  the 
party,  shall  support  all  who  support  its  principles  and 
policy,  and  oppose  all  who  oppose  them.  I  have  given, 
and  shall  continue  to  give,  the  administration  a  hearty 
and  sincere  support  on  the  great  question  now  under 
discussion ;  because  I  regard  it  as  in  strict  conformity 
to  our  creed  and  policy,  and  shall  do  everything  in  my 
power  to  sustain  them  under  the  great  responsibility 
which  they  have  assumed.  But  let  me  tell  those  who 
are  more  interested  in  sustaining  them  than  myself, 
that  the  danger  which  threatens  them  lies  not  here,  but 
in  another  quarter,  This  measure  will  tend  to  up- 


1838.]  REPLY  TO  MR.  CLAY.  371 

hold  them,  if  they  stand  fast  and  adhere  to  it  with 
fidelity.  But,  if  they  wish  to  know  where  the  danger 
is,  let  them  look  to  the  fiscal  department  of  the  govern 
ment.  I  said,  years  ago,  that  we  were  committing  an 
error  the  reverse  of  the  great  and  dangerous  one  that 
was  committed  in  1828,  and  to  which  we  owe  our 
present  difficulties,  and  all  we  have  since  experienced. 
Then,  we  raised  the  revenue  greatly,  when  the  expend 
itures  were  about  to  be  reduced  by  the  discharge  of 
the  public  debt ;  and  now,  we  have  doubled  the  dis 
bursements,  when  the  revenue  is  rapidly  decreasing: 
an  error  which,  although  probably  not  so  fatal  to  the 
country,  will  prove,  if  immediate  and  vigorous  measures 
be  not  adopted,  far  more  so  to  those  in  power.  The 
country  will  not,  and  ought  not,  to  bear  the  creation 
of  a  new  debt  beyond  what  may  be  temporarily  neces 
sary  to  meet  the  present  embarrassment ;  and  any  at 
tempt  to  increase  the  duties  must  and  ought  to  prove 
fatal  to  those  who  may  make  it,  so  long  as  the  expendi 
tures  may,  by  economy  and  accountability,  be  brought 
within  the  limits  of  the  revenue. 

"  But  the  senator  did  not  confine  his  attack  to  my 
conduct  and  motives  in  reference  to  the  present  ques 
tion.  In  his  eagerness  to  weaken  the  cause  I  support, 
by  destroying  confidence  in  me,  he  made  an  indiscrimi 
nate  attack  on  my  intellectual  faculties,  which  he  char 
acterized  as  metaphysical,  eccentric,  too  much  of  genius, 
and  too  little  of  common  sense,  and,  of  course,  want 
ing  a  sound  and  practical  judgment. 

"Mr.  President,  according  to  my  opinion,  there  is 
nothing  of  which  those  who  are  endowed  with  superior 
mental  faculties  ought  to  be  more  cautious  than  to  re- 


372  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838 

proach  those  with  their  deficiency  to  whom  Providence 
has  been  less  liberal.  The  faculties  of  our  mind  are 
the  immediate  gift  of  our  Creator,  for  which  we  are  no 
farther  responsible  than  for  their  proper  cultivation, 
according  to  our  opportunities,  and  their  proper  appli 
cation  to  control  and  regulate  our  actions.  Thus 
thinking,  I  trust  I  shall  be  the  last  to  assume  superior 
ity  on  my  part,  or  reproach  any  one  with  inferiority 
on  his ;  but  those  who  do  not  regard  the  rule  when  ap 
plied  to  others,  cannot  expect  it  to  be  observed  when 
applied  to  themselves.  The  critic  must  expect  to  be 
criticized,  and  he  who  points  out  the  faults  of  others, 
to  have  his  own  pointed  out. 

"  I  cannot  retort  on  the  senator  the  charge  of  beinp 
metaphysical.  I  cannot  accuse  him  of  possessing  the 
powers  of  analysis  and  generalization,  those  lugher 
faculties  of  the  mind  (called  metaphysical  uy  those 
who  do  not  possess  them)  which  decompile  and  resolve 
into  their  elements  the  complex  masses  of  ideas  that 
exist  in  the  world  of  mind,  as  chemistry  does  the  bodies 
that  surround  us  in  the  material  world;  and  without 
which  those  deep  and  hidden  causes  which  are  in  con 
stant  action,  and  producing  such  mighty  changes  in  the 
condition  of  society,  would  operate  unseen  and  unde 
tected.  The  absence  of  these  higher  qualities  of  mind 
is  conspicuous  throughout  the  whole  course  of  the 
senator's  public  life.  To  this  it  may  be  traced  that  he 
prefers  the  specious  to  the  solid,  and  the  plausible  to 
the  true.  To  the  same  cause,  combined  with  an  ardent 
temperament,  it  is  owing  that  we  ever  find  him  mount 
ed  on  some  popular  and  favorite  measure,  which  he 
whips  along,  cheered  by  the  shouts  of  the  multitude, 


1838.]  REPLY  TO  MR.  CLAY.  373 

and  never  dismounts  till  he  has  rode  it  down.  Thus, 
at  one  time  we  find  him  mounted  on  the  protective 
system,  which  he  rode  down ;  at  another,  on  internal 
improvement;  and  now  he  is  mounted  on  a  bank, 
which  will  surely  share  the  same  fate,  unless  those  who 
are  immediately  interested  shall  stop  him  in  his  head 
long  career.  It  is  the  fault  of  his  mind  to  seize  on  a 
few  prominent  and  striking  advantages,  and  to  pursue 
them  eagerly,  without  looking  to  consequences.  Thus, 
in  the  case  of  the  protective  system,  he  was  struck 
with  the  advantages  of  manufactures ;  and,  believing 
that  high  duties  was  the  proper  mode  of  protecting 
them,  he  pushed  forward  the  system,  without  seeing 
that  he  was  enriching  one  portion  of  the  country  at 
the  expense  of  the  other;  corrupting  the  one  and 
alienating  the  other;  and,  finally,  dividing  the  com 
munity  into  two  great  hostile  interests,  which  termi 
nated  in  the  overthrow  of  the  system  itself.  So,  now, 
he  looks  only  to  a  uniform  currency,  and  a  bank  as  a 
means  of  securing  it,  without  once  reflecting  how  far 
the  banking  system  has  progressed,  and  the  difficulties 
that  impede  its  farther  progress  ;  that  banking  and 
politics  are  running  together,  to  their  mutual  destruc 
tion  ;  and  that  the  only  possible  mode  of  saving  his 
favorite  system  is  to  separate  it  from  the  government. 

"  To  the  defects  of  understanding  which  the  senator 
attributes  to  me,  I  make  no  reply.  It  is  for  others,  and 
not  me,  to  determine  the  portion  of  understanding 
which  it  has  pleased  the  Author  of  my  being  to  bestow 
on  me.  It  is,  however,  fortunate  for  me,  that  the 
standard  by  which  I  shall  be  judged  is  not  the  false, 
prejudiced,  and,  as  I  have  shown,  unfounded  opinion 


374  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

which  the  senator  has  expressed,  but  my  acts.  They 
furnish  materials,  neither  few  nor  scant,  to  form  a  just 
estimate  of  my  mental  faculties.  I  have  now  been 
more  than  twenty-six  years  continuously  in  the  service 
of  this  government,  in  various  stations,  and  have  taken 
part  in  almost  all  the  great  questions  which  have  agi 
tated  this  country  during  this  long  and  important  period. 
Throughout  the  whole  I  have  never  followed  events, 
but  have  taken  my  stand  in  advance,  openly  and  freely, 
avowing  my  opinions  on  all  questions,  and  leaving  it  to 
time  and  experience  to  condemn  or  approve  my  course. 
Thus  acting,  I  have  often,  and  on  great  questions,  sepa 
rated  from  those  with  whom  I  usually  acted ;  and  if  I 
am  really  so  defective  in  sound  and  practical  judg 
ment  as  the  senator  represents,  the  proof,  if  to  be 
found  anywhere,  must  be  found  in  such  instances,  or 
where  I  have  acted  on  my  sole  responsibility.  Now,  I 
ask,  In  which  of  the  many  instances  of  the  kind  is  such 
proof  to  be  found  ?  It  is  not  my  intention  to  call  to 
the  recollection  of  the  Senate  all  such ;  but  that  you, 
senators,  may  judge  for  yourselves,  it  is  due,  in  justice 
to  myself,  that  I  slw.ild  suggest  a  few  of  the  most 
prominent,  which  at  the  time  were  regarded  as  the 
senator  now  considers  the  present ;  and  then,  as  now, 
because,  where  duty  is  involved,  I  would  not  submit  to 
party  trammels. 

•'  I  go  back  to  the  commencement  of  my  public  life, 
the  war  session,  as  it  was  usually  called,  of  1812,  when 
I  first  took  rny  seat  in  the  other  house,  a  young  man 
wiiliuut  experience  to  guide  me,  and  I  shall  select,  as 
the  first  instance,  the  navy.  At  that  time,  the  adminis 
tration  and  the  party  to  which  I  was  strongly  attached 


1838.]  REPLY  TO  MR.  CLAY.  375 

were  decidedly  opposed  to  this  important  arm  of  ser 
vice.  It  was  considered  anti-republican  to  support  it ; 
but  acting  with  my  then  distinguished  colleague,  Mr. 
Cheves,  who  led  the  way,  I  did  not  hesitate  to  give  it 
my  hearty  support,  regardless  of  party  ties.  Does  this 
instance  sustain  the  charge  of  the  senator  ? 

"  The  next  I  shall  select  is  the  restrictive  system  of 
that  day ;  the  Embargo,  the  Non-importation  and  Non- 
intercourse  Acts.  This,  too,  was  a  party  measure, 
which  had  been  long  and  warmly  contested,  and,  of 
course,  the  lines  of  party  well  drawn.  Young  and  in 
experienced  as  I  was,  I  saw  its  defects,  and  resolutely 
opposed  it  almost  alone  of  my  party.  The  second  or 
third  speech  I  made,  after  I  took  my  seat,  was  in  open 
denunciation  of  the  system ;  and  I  may  refer  to  the 
grounds  I  then  assumed,  the  truth  of  which  have  been 
confirmed  by  time  and  experience,  with  pride  and  con 
fidence.  This  will  scarcely  be  selected  by  the  senator 
to  make  good  his  charge. 

"  I  pass  over  other  instances,  and  come  to  Mr.  Dal- 
las's  bank  of  1814—15.  That,  too,  was  a  party  meas 
ure.  Banking  was  then  comparatively  but  little  un 
derstood,  and  it  may  seem  astonishing,  at  this  time,  that 
such  a  project  should  ever  have  received  any  counte 
nance  or  support.  It  proposed  to  create  a  bank  of 
$50,000,000,  to  consist  almost  entirely  of  what  was 
called  then  the  war  stocks  ;  that  is,  the  public  debt  cre 
ated  in  carrying  on  the  then  war.  It  was  provided 
that  the  bank  should  not  pay  specie  during  the  war, 
and  for  three  years  after  its  termination,  for  carrying 
on  which  it  was  to  lend  the  government  the  funds.  la 
plain  language,  the  government  was  to  borrow  back  its 


376  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALKOUN.        [1838, 

own  credit  from  the  bank,  and  pay  to  the  institution 
six  per  cent,  for  its  use.  I  had  scarcely  ever  before 
seriously  thought  of  banks  or  banking,  but  I  clearly 
saw  through  the  operation,  and  the  danger  to  the  gov 
ernment  and  country;  and,  regardless  of  party  ties 
or  denunciations,  I  opposed  and  defeated  it  in  the  man 
ner  I  explained  at  the  extra  session.  I  then  subjected 
myself  to  the  very  charge  which  the  senator  now 
makes ;  but  time  has  done  me  justice,  as  it  will  in  the 
present  instance. 

"  Passing  the  intervening  instances,  I  come  down  to 
my  administration  of  the  war  department,  where  I 
acted  on  my  own  judgment  and  responsibility.  It  is 
known  to  all  that  the  department,  at  the  time,  was  per 
fectly  disorganized,  with  not  much  less  than  $50,000,000 
of  outstanding  and  unsettled  accounts,  and  the  greatest 
confusion  in  every  branch  of  service.  Though  with 
out  experience,  I  prepared,  shortly  after  I  went  in,  the 
bill  for  its  organization,  and  on  its  passage  I  drew  up 
the  body  of  rules  for  carrying  the  act  into  execution, 
both  of  which  remain  substantially  unchanged  to  this 
day.  After  reducing  the  outstanding  accounts  to  a  few 
millions,  and  introducing  order  and  accountability  in 
every  branch  of  service,  and  bringing  down  the  expendi 
ture  of  the  army  from  four  to  two  and  a  half  millions  an 
nually,  without  subtracting  a  single  comfort  from  either 
officer  or  soldier,  I  left  the  department  in  a  condition 
that  might  well  be  compared  to  the  best  in  any  country. 
If  I  am  deficient  in  the  qualities  which  the  senator  at 
tributes  to  me,  here  in  this  mass  of  details  and  business 
it  ought  to  be  discovered.  Will  he  look  to  this  to 
make  good  his  charge  ? 


1838.]  REPLY  TO  MR.  CLAY.  377 

"  From  the  war  department  I  was  transferred  to  the 
chair  which  you  now  occupy.  How  I  acquitted  my 
self  in  the  discharge  of  its  duties,  I  leave  it  to  the  body 
to  decide,  without  adding  a  word.  The  station,  from 
its  leisure,  gave  me  a  good  opportunity  to  study  the 
genius  of  the  prominent  measure  of  the  day,  called 
then  the  American  System,  of  which  I  profited.  I 
soon  perceived  where  its  errors  lay,  and  how  it  would 
operate.  I  clearly  saw  its  desolating  effects  in  one  sec 
tion,  and  corrupting  influence  in  the  other ;  and  when 
I  saw  that  it  could  not  be  arrested  here,  I  fell  back  on 
my  own  state,  and  a  blow  was  given  to  a  system  des 
tined  to  destroy  our  institutions,  if  not  overthrown, 
which  brought  it  to  the  ground.  This  brings  me  down 
to  the  present  time,  and  where  passions  and  prejudices 
are  yet  too  strong  to  make  an  appeal  with  any  pros 
pect  of  a  fair  and  impartial  verdict.  I  then  transfer 
this,  and  all  my  subsequent  acts,  including  the  present, 
to  the  tribunal  of  posterity,  with  a  perfect  confidence 
that  nothing  will  be  found,  in  what  I  have  said  or  done, 
to  impeach  my  integrity  or  understanding. 

"  I  have  now,  senators,  repelled  the  attacks  on  me.  I 
have  settled  and  cancelled  the  debt  between  me  and 
my  accuser.  I  have  not  sought  this  controversy,  nor 
have  I  shunned  it  when  forced  on  me.  I  have  acted 
on  the  defensive,  and  if  it  is  to  continue,  which  rests 
with  the  senator,  I  shall  throughout  continue  so  to  act. 
I  know  too  well  the  advantage  of  my  position  to  sur 
render  it.  The  senator  commenced  the  controversy, 
and  it  is  but  right  that  he  should  be  responsible  for  the 
direction  it  shall  hereafter  take.  Be  his  determination 
what  it  may,  I  stand  prepared  to  meet  him." 


378  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

Mr.  Webster  also  attacked  Mr.  Calhoun,  and  charged 
him  with  deserting  the  opposition  when  victory  was 
within  their  reach,  and  his  "  cooperation  only  was  wanted 
to  prostrate  forever  those  in  power."  These  few  words, 
said  Mr.  Calhoun  in  his  reply,  contained  the  whole 
secret  of  the  denunciations  levelled  against  him ;  and 
as  Mr.  Webster  declared  that  he  should  soon  move  for 
a  renewal  of  the  protective  policy,  he  pointed  to  this 
declaration  as  furnishing,  if  anything  had  been  needed, 
a  complete  justification  for  his  course.  But  he  would 
not  rest  the  matter  here.  He  insisted,  that  Mr.  Webster 
and  himself  entertained  irreconcilable  opinions  in  rela 
tion  to  the  character  of  the  government,  its  principles, 
and  its  true  policy  ;  and  they  were  in  their  appropriate 
spheres  when  arrayed  in  open  hostility. 

A  friend  who  was  present  during  the  delivery  of  Mr. 
Calhoun's  speech  in  reply  to,  Mr.  Clay,  says  that, 
although  he  has  heard  many  public  speakers,  he  never 
witnessed  such  intense  earnestness,  such  a  display  of 
impassioned  eloquence,  as  characterized  this  great  effort. 
The  keen  fulgent  eyes  of  the  speaker  shot  lightnings  at 
every  glance,  his  hair  stood  on  end,  large  drops  of  sweat 
rested  on  his  brow,  and  every  feature  and  muscle  were 
alive  with  animation.  And  while  this  burning  flood  of 
indignation  was  rolling  in  a  deluge  from  his  lips,  the 
audience  were  so  completely  enchained  that  perfect 
silence  was  preserved,  and  a  pin  might  have  been  heard 
to  drop  in  any  part  of  the  chamber ;  and  when  he  de 
clared,  with  a  gesture  suited  to  his  words,  that  he  hurl 
ed  back  the  dart  which  had  been  thrown  against  him, 
the  eyes  of  all  were  involuntarily  turned  to  witness  the 
effect  of  the  blow. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

Resolutions  on  the  Subject  of  Abolitionism — Opinions  of  Mr.  Calhoun — 
Assumption  of  State  Debts — Bankrupt  Bill — Case  of  the  Enterprise 
— Support  of  Mr.  Van  Buren — Election  of  Harrison  and  Tyler — The 
Public  Lands— Distribution— The  Bank  Bills— Defence  of  the  Veto 
Power — Mr.  Clay's  Resolutions — Tariff  of  1842 — Ashburton  Treaty. 

AMONG  the  intellectual  champions  of  the  Senate,  Mr. 
Calhoun  now  stood,  like  Gabriel,  confessedly  preemi 
nent.  A  world- wide  reputation  was  his ;  no  stranger 
entered  the  chamber  without  seeking  him  out  as  one  of 
the  first  among  his  compeers  ;  and  the  warmest  admirers 
of  Clay  and  Webster  willingly  conceded  that  he  was 
second  only  to  the  objects  of  their  special  praise.  He 
attracted  the  attention,  alike  of  friend  and  foe — he  was 
"  the  observed  of  all  observers." 

In  debate  he  was  felt  to  be  powerful,  and  none  dared 
enter  the  lists  against  him  single-handed,  unless  clad  in 
armor  of  mailed  proof.  It  cannot  be  said  that  he 
never  found  his  match ;  but  one  thing  is  true — he  never 
owned  a  superior. 

The  abolitionists  had  continued  to  increase  in  num 
bers  and  in  influence  in  the  northern  states,  and  one  or 
both  parties  in  that  section  often  coquetted  with  them 
at  the  state  elections,  in  order  to  secure  the  success  of 
their  candidates,  and  not,  in  a  majority  of  cases  per 
haps,  with  the  view  of  ultimately  rendering  any  assist- 


380  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

ance  in  the  main  object  which  they  had  in  view.  But 
they  were  thereby  emboldened  to  make  still  greater 
efforts  ;  they  began  to  feel  themselves  of  some  conse 
quence,  and  to  assume  the  airs  natural  to  those  in  the 
position  which  they  occupied — that  of  a  third  party, 
holding,  in  many  of  the  states,  the  balance  of  power. 
Mr.  Calhoun  earnestly  desired  that  the  Republican  party 
should  commit  themselves  decidedly  against  the  aboli 
tionists,  and  with  that  view  he  offered  the  following 
resolutions  at  the  session  of  1837-8  : — 

RESOLUTIONS    ON    ABOLITIONISM. 

"  Resolved,  That,  in  the  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution,  the 
states  adopting  the  same  acted  severally  as  free,  independent,  and  sove 
reign  states ;  and  that  each,  for  itself,  by  its  own  voluntary  assent,  en 
tered  the  Union  with  the  view  to  its  increased  security  against  all  dan 
gers,  domestic  as  well  as  foreign,  and  the  more  perfect  and  secure  en 
joyment  of  its  advantages,  natural,  political,  and  social. 

"  Resolved,  That,  in  delegating  a  portion  of  their  powers  to  be  exer 
cised  by  the  Federal  Government,  the  states  retained  severally  the  ex 
clusive  and  sole  right  over  their  own  domestic  institutions  and  police, 
and  are  alone  responsible  for  them  ;  and  that  any  intermeddling  of  any 
one  or  more  states,  or  a  combination  of  their  citizens,  with  the  domestic 
institutions  and  police  of  the  others,  on  any  ground  or  under  any  pre 
text  whatever,  political,  moral,  or  religious,  with  a  view  to  their  altera 
tion  or  subversion,  is  an  assumption  of  superiority  not  warranted  by  the 
Constitution,  insulting  to  the  states  interfered  with  :  tending  to  endanger 
their  domestic  peace  and  tranquillity,  subversive  of  the  objects  for 
which  the  Constitution  was  formed,  and,  by  necessary  consequence, 
tending  to  weaken  and  destroy  the  Union  itself. 

"  Resolved,  That  this  Government  was  instituted  and  adopted  by  the 
several  states  of  this  Union  as  a  common  agent,  in  order  to  carry  into 
effect  the  powers  which  they  had  delegated  by  the  Constitution  for  their 
mutual  security  and  prosperity ;  and  that,  in  fulfilment  of  this  high  and 
Bacred  trust,  this  Government  is  bound  so  to  exercise  its  powers  as  to 
give,  as  far  as  may  be  practicable,  increased  stability  and  security  to  the 


1838.]  RESOLUTIONS    ON    ABOLITIONISM.  381 

domestic  institutions  of  the  states  that  compose  the  Union  ;  and  that  it 
is  the  solemn  duty  of  the  Government  to  resist  all  attempts  by  one 
portion  of  the  Union  to  use  it  as  an  instrument  to  attack  the  domestic 
institutions  of  another,  or  to  weaken  or  destroy  such  institutions,  instead 
of  strengthening  and  upholding  them,  as  it  is  in  duty  bound  to  do. 

"  Resolved,  That  domestic  slavery,  as  it  exists  in  the  Southern  and 
"Western  States  of  this  Union,  composes  an  important  part  of  their 
domestic  institutions,  inherited  from  their  ancestors,  and  existing  at  the 
adoption  of  the  Constitution,  by  which  it  is  recognized  as  constituting  an 
essential  element  in  the  distribution  of  its  powers  among  the  states  ;  and 
that  no  change  of  opinion  or  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  other  states  of 
the  Union  in  relation  to  it  can  justify  them  or  their  citizens  in  open  and 
systematic  attacks  thereon,  with  the  view  to  its  overthrow ;  and  that  all 
such  attacks  are  in  manifest  violation  of  the  mutual  and  solemn  pledge 
to  protect  and  defend  each  other,  given  by  the  states  respectively  on 
entering  into  the  Constitutional  compact  which  formed  the  Union,  and, 
as  such,  is  a  manifest  breach  of  faith,  and  a  violation  of  the  most  solemn 
obligations,  moral  and  religious. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  intermeddling  of  any  state  or  states,  or  their 
citizens,  to  abolish  slavery  in  this  district,  or  any  of  the  territories,  on 
the  ground  or  under  the  pretext  that  it  is  immoral  or  sinful,  or  the  pas 
sage  of  any  act  or  measure  of  Congress  with  that  view,  would  be  a  direct 
and  dangerous  attack  on  the  institutions  of  all  the  slaveholding  states. 

"  Resolved,  That  the  union  of  these  states  rests  on  an  equality  of 
rights  and  advantages  among  its  members  ;  and  that  whatever  destroys 
that  equality  tends  to  destroy  the  Union  itself;  aud  that  it  is  the  solemn 
duty  of  all,  and  more  especially  of  this  body,  which  represents  the  states 
in  their  corporate  capacity,  to  resist  all  attempts  to  discriminate  be 
tween  the  states  in  extending  the  benefits  of  the  Government  to  the 
several  portions  of  the  Union ;  and  that  to  refuse  to  extend  to  the 
Southern  and  Western  States  any  advantage  which  would  tend  to 
strengthen  or  render  them  more  secure,  or  increase  their  limits  or  popu 
lation  by  the  annexation  of  new  territory  or  states,  on  the  assumption  or 
under  the  pretext  that  the  institution  of  slavery,  as  it  exists  among 
them,  is  immoral  or  sinful,  or  otherwise  obnoxious,  would  be  contrary  to 
that  equality  of  rights  and  advantages  which  the  Constitution  was  in 
tended  to  secure  alike  to  all  the  members  of  the  Union,  and  would,  in 
effect,  disfranchise  the  slaveholding  states,  withholding  them  from  the 
advantages,  while  it  subjected  them  to  the  burdens,  of  the  Government" 


382  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

Mr.  Calhoun  defended  his  resolutions  in  a  sort  of 
running  debate,  during  which  he  examined  the  relative 
rights,  obligations,  and  duties,  of  the  governments  and 
the  citizens  of  the  slaveholding  and  non-slaveholding 
states.  With  some  slight  modifications,  all  the  resolu 
tions  passed  the  Senate,  except  the  last,  which  had  ref 
erence  obviously  to  the  admission  of  Florida,  opposi 
tion  to  which  was  already  threatened,  and  to  the  con 
templated  acquisition  of  Texas. 

While  upon  this  subject,  it  will  not  be  amiss  to  state, 
once  for  all,  what  were  the  opinions  of  Mr.  Calhoun  on 
the  subject  of  slavery.  In  his  view,  it  ought  not  to  be 
considered,  as  it  exists  in  the  United  States,  in  the  ab 
stract  ;  but  rather  as  a  political  institution,  existing  prior 
to  the  formation  of  the  government  and  expressly  recog 
nized  in  the  Constitution.*  The  framers  of  that  instru 
ment  regarded  slaves  as  property,  and  admitted  the 
right  of  ownership  in  them.f  The  institution  being 
thus  acknowledged,  he  contended  that  the  faith  of  all 
the  states  was  pledged  against  any  interference  with  it 
in  the  states  in  which  it  existed ;  and  that  in  the  District 
of  Columbia,  and  in  the  territories  from  which  slavery 
had  not  been  excluded  by  the  Missouri  Compromise, 
being  the  common  property  of  all  the  states,  the  owner 
of  slaves  enjoyed  the  same  rights  and  was  entitled  to 
the  same  protection,  if  he  chose  to  emigrate  thither,  or 
if  already  a  resident,  as  if  he  were  in  one  of  the  slave 
states — in  other  words,  that  upon  common  soil,  his  right 
of  property  should  be  respected.  Any  interference 
with  it,  therefore,  direct  or  indirect,  immediate  or  remote, 

*  Article  i.,  Section  2 ;  Article  iv.,  Section  2. 

f  "Madison  Papers,"  (Debates  in  the  Convention)  pp.  181,  391 


1838.]  OPINIONS    ON    SLAVERY.  383 

he  felt  bound  to  oppose,  and  did  oppose  to  the  very  close 
of  his  life. 

He  held,  too,  that  it  was  desirable  to  continue  the 
institution  at  the  south;  that  it  had  been  productive 
of  more  good  than  harm  ;  and  that  "  in  no  other  condi 
tion,  or  in  any  other  age  or  country,  [had]  the  Negro 
race  ever  attained  so  high  an  elevation  in  morals, 
intelligence,  or  civilization."*  Slavery,  he  was  ac 
customed  to  say,  existed  in  some  form  or  another,  in  all 
civilized  countries ;  and  he  was  disposed  to  doubt  the 
correctness  of  the  sentiment  contained  in  the  Declara 
tion  of  Independence,  that  all  men  are  born  free  and 
equal.  Natural  rights,  indeed,  in  every  age,  in  every 
country,  and  under  every  form  of  government,  have 
been,  and  are,  regulated  and  controlled  by  political  in 
stitutions.  He  considered  the  colored  population  as 
constituting  an  inferior  race,  and  that  slavery  was  not 
a  degradation,  but  had  the  direct  tendency  to  improve 
their  moral,  social,  and  intellectual  condition.  The 
situation  of  the  slaves  was  an  enviable  one  in  com 
parison  with  that  of  the  free  negroes  at  the  north,  or 
with  that  of  the  operatives  in  the  manufactories,  and 
the  laboring  classes  generally  in  Great  Britain. f  Of 
what  value,  except  relatively,  he  asked — and  asked,  too, 
with  a  great  deal  of  pertinence — were  political  rights, 
when  he  saw  thousands  of  voters,  in  the  northern  states, 
in  the  service  of  powerful  monopolies  or  employed  on 


*  Letter  to  Mr.  Pakenham,  April  18,  1844. 

f  See  Humphrey's  Tour,  vol.  i  chap.  20 ;  Durbin's  Observations  in 
Europe,  vol.  ii  chap.  13  ;  Head's  Manufacturing  Districts  of  England, 
passim. 


384  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1838. 

public  works,  fairly  driven  to  the  polls  with  ballots  in 
their  hands  ? 

The  negro  slave,  he  contended,  felt  and  acknowledged 
his  inferiority,  and  regarded  his  position  as  a  proper  and 
natural  one.*  The  two  races  in  the  Southern  states 
were  almost  equal  in  numbers.  They  could  not  live 
upon  terms  of  equality.  "  It  may,  in  truth,  be  assumed 
as  a  maxim,"  was  his  language,  "  that  two  races  differ 
ing  so  greatly,  and  in  so  many  respects,  cannot  possibly 
exist  together  in  the  same  country,  where  their  numbers 
are  nearly  equal,  without  the  one  being  subjected  to  the 
other.  Experience  has  proved  that  the  existing  rela 
tion,  in  which  the  one  is  subjected  to  the  other,  in  the 
slaveholding  states,  is  consistent  with  the  peace  and 
safety  of  both,  with  great  improvement  to  the  inferior  ; 
while  the  same  experience  proves  that  *  *  *  the 
abolition  of  slavery  would  (if  it  did  not  destroy  the 
inferior  by  conflicts,  to  which  it  would  lead)  reduce  it 
to  the  extremes  of  vice  and  wretchedness.  In  this 
view  of  the  subject,  it  may  be  asserted,  that  what  is 
called  slavery  is  in  reality  a  political  institution,  essen 
tial  to  the  peace,  safety,  and  prosperity  of  those  states 
of  the  Union  in  which  it  exists. "f 

Entertaining  these  views,  it  is  not  strange  that  Mr. 
Calhoun  regarded  the  movements  of  the  abolitionists  as 
being  dictated  by  a  false  philanthropy,  and  that  he 
thought  them  calculated,  if  persisted  in,  to  jeopard  the 
happiness  and  tranquillity  of  the  slave  states,  and  to 
endanger  the  peace  of  the  Union  ;  nor  that  he  so  often 
warned  his  fellow-citizens  of  the  Southern  states  against 

*  Dr.  Estes'  Defence  of  Negro  Slavery,  p.  74. 
f  Letter  to  Mr.  Pakenham. 


1838.]  EXECUTIVE    PATRONAGE.  385 

the  designs  openly  avowed,  or  secretly  cherished,  which, 
if  not  early  opposed  or  counteracted,  would  prove 
highly  prejudicial  to  their  interests  and  their  welfare. 
Where  so  much  was  at  stake,  he  thought  it  well  to  be 
wise  in  time. 

At  the  session  of  1838-39,  in  a  speech  characterized 
by  his  usual  ability,  Mr.  Calhoun  opposed  a  bill  intro 
duced  by  Mr.  Crittenden,  to  prevent  the  interference 
of  certain  federal  officers  in  the  elections.  He  took 
the  ground,  that  the  acceptance  of  an  office  under  the 
federal  government,  did  not  deprive  the  individual  of 
the  right  of  suffrage  guaranteed  to  him  by  the  constitu 
tion  and  laws  of  his  own  state,  and  ought  not  to  debar 
him  from  the  exercise  of  any  of  the  privileges  incident 
thereto.  He  further  argued,  that  the  true  cause  of  the 
increase  in  strength  and  in  influence  of  the  executive 
power,  was  to  be  found  in  the  large  revenue  which  had 
been  collected  and  expended, — in  the  latter  operation 
adding  materially  to  the  patronage  of  the  federal  govern 
ment  and  its  head.  He  stated  that  it  would  be  pre 
sumptuous  in  him  to  advise  the  administration,  but  if 
they  would  hear  the  voice  of  one  who  wished  them 
well,  he  would  recommend  to  them  to  bring  back  the 
government  to  the  true  Jeffersonian  policy.  "  You  are 
placed,"  he  said,  "in  the  most  remarkable  juncture  that 
has  ever  occurred  since  the  establishment  of  the  federal 
government,  and,  by  seizing  the  opportunity,  you  may 
bring  the  vessel  of  state  to  a  position  where  she  may 
take  a  new  tack,  and  thereby  escape  all  the  shoals  and 
breakers  into  the  midst  of  which  a  false  steerage  has 
run  her,  and  bring  her  triumphantly  into  her  destined 
port,  with  honor  to  yourselves  and  safety  to  those  on 

17 


386  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1840. 

board.  Take  your  stand  boldly;  avow  your  object; 
disclose  your  measures,  and  let  the  people  see  clearly 
that  you  intend  to  do  what  Jefferson  designed,  but,  from 
adverse  circumstances,  could  not  accomplish :  to  reverse 
the  measures  originating  in  principles  and  policy  not 
congenial  with  our  political  system  ;  to  divest  the 
government  of  all  undue  patronage  and  influence;  to 
restrict  it  to  the  few  great  objects  intended  by  the  Con 
stitution  ;  in  a  word,  to  give  a  complete  ascendency  to 
the  good  old  Virginia  school  over  its  antagonist,  which 
time  and  experience  have  proved  to  be  foreign  and 
dangerous  to  our  system  of  government,  and  you  may 
count  with  confidence  on  their  support,  without  looking 
to  other  means  of  success.  Should  the  government 
take  such  a  course  at  this  favorable  moment,  our  free 
and  happy  institutions  may  be  perpetuated  for  genera 
tions,  but,  if  a  different,  short  will  be  their  duration." 

At  the  session  of  1839-40,  several  important  ques 
tions  were  discussed.  Mr.  Calhoun  made  able  speeches 
in  opposition  to  the  assumption  of  the  state  debts  by  the 
general  government, — a  project  then  seriously  agitated 
by  a  number  of  leading  whigs;  and  to  the  bankrupt 
bill,  which  he  approved,  however,  as  respected  its 
compulsory  features  relating  to  individuals.  He  thought 
the  bill  ought  not  to  include  banks,  and  decidedly  con 
demned  the  insolvent  features  introduced  into  it.  But 
his  ablest  speech  at  this  session  was  made  upon  his 
resolutions  in  the  case  of  the  brig  Enterprise,  on  the 
13th  of  March,  1840.  These  resolutions  affirmed,  and 
Mr.  Calhoun  maintained  with  much  power  and  elo 
quence  in  his  speech,  that  a  ship  or  a  vessel  on  the  high 
seas,  in  time  of  peace,  engaged  in  a  lawful  voyage,  was, 


1840.]  PRESIDENTIAL    ELECTION.  387 

according  to  the  laws  of  nations,  under  the  exclusive 
jurisdiction  of  the  state  to  which  her  flag  belonged, — 
as  much  so  as  if  constituting  a  part  of  its  own  domain ; 
that  if  such  ship  or  vessel  should  be  forced,  by  stress  of 
weather,  or  other  unavoidable  cause,  into  the  port  of  a 
friendly  power,  she  would  lose  none  of  the  rights  apper 
taining  to  her  on  the  high  seas,  but,  on  the  contrary,  she, 
and  her  cargo  and  persons  on  board,  with  their  property, 
and  all  the  rights  belonging  to  their  personal  relations, 
as  established  by  the  laws  of  the  state  to  which  they 
belong,  would  be  placed  under  the  protection  which  the 
laws  of  nations  extend  to  the  unfortunate  under  such 
circumstances  ;  and  that  the  brig  Enterprise,  which 
was  forced  unavoidably,  by  stress  of  weather,  into 
Port  Hamilton,  Bermuda  Island,  while  on  a  lawful  voy 
age  on  the  high  seas,  from  one  port  of  the  Union  to 
another,  came  within  the  principles  embraced  in  his 
resolutions,  and  the  seizure  and  detention  of  the  negroes 
on  board,  by  the  local  authority  of  the  island,  was  an 
act  in  violation  of  the  laws  of  nations,  and  highly  un 
just  to  our  own  citizens,  to  whom  they  belonged. 

At  the  presidential  election  in  1840,  Mr.  Calhoun 
supported  Mr.  Van  Buren,  as  did  his  friends  in  South 
Carolina.  The  administration  of  that  gentleman  had 
been  conducted,  on  all  important  points,  in  entire  con 
sonance,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  believed,  with  the  republican 
principles ;  and  he  decidedly  approved,  therefore,  of 
giving  the  electoral  vote  of  the  state  to  him.  But  the 
result  in  the  Union  was  unfavorable,  and  General  Har 
rison  and  Mr.  Tyler  were  elected  to  the  two  highest 
offices  in  the  gift  of  the  American  people — not  as  the 
exponents  of  any  particular  set  of  principles,  for  the 


JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1841. 

convention  that  nominated  them  refused  to  pass  any 
resolutions,  and  while  General  Harrison  was  understood 
to  be  an  ultra  Whig,  or  under  the  control  of  ultra  Whigs, 
Mr.  Tyler  was  equally  well  known  as  a  State  Rights  man. 
Next  in  importance  to  the  question  of  the  currency, 
Mr.  Calhoun  regarded  that  of  the  public  lands.  At  the 
session  of  1840-41,  he  discussed  the  whole  policy  of 
the  government  with  respect  to  the  latter  subject.  He 
delivered  three  speeches ;  one  on  the  prospective  pre 
emption  bill,  which  he  opposed ;  the  second  on  an 
amendment,  offered  by  Mr.  Crittenden  as  a  substitute, 
providing  for  the  distribution  among  the  states  of  the 
revenue  arising  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands ;  and 
the  third  in  reply  to  the  speeches  of  Mr.  Webster  and 
Mr.  Clay  on  Mr.  Crittenden's  amendment.  Mr.  Cal 
houn  had  often  reflected  on  this  subject,  and  was  there 
fore  entirely  at  home  upon  it.  He  was  opposed,  in  toto, 
to  the  scheme  of  distribution,  and  advocated  the  cession 
of  the  public  lands  to  the  new  states  in  which  they 
were  situated.  "As  far  back  as  February,  1837,  he 
offered  a  substitute,  in  the  form  of  an  amendment  to 
the  bill  '  to  suspend  the  sale  of  the  public  lands,'  in 
which  he  proposed  to  cede  to  the  new  states  the  por 
tion  of  the  public  lands  lying  within  their  respective 
limits,  on  certain  conditions,  which  he  accompanied  by 
a  speech  explanatory  of  his  views  and  reasons.  He 
followed  up  the  subject  in  a  speech  delivered  in  Janu 
ary,  1839,  on  the  Graduation  Bill;  and  in  May,  1840, 
an  elaborate  and  full  report  was  made  from  the  Com 
mittee  on  Public  Lands,  and  a  bill  introduced  by  him, 
containing  substantially  the  same  provisions  with  his 
original  proposition. 


1841.]  THE  PUBLIC  LANDS.  389 

"  There  have  been  few  measures  ever  presented  for 
consideration  so  grossly  misrepresented,  or  so  much 
misconceived,  as  the  one  in  question.  It  has  been 
represented  as  a  gift — a  surrender — an  abandonment 
of  the  public  domain  to  the  new  states ;  and  having 
assumed  that  to  be  its  true  character,  the  most  unwor 
thy  motives  have  been  attributed  to  the  author  for  in 
troducing  it.  Nothing  is  more  untrue.  The  cession 
is  neither  more  nor  less  than  a  conditional  sale,  not  ex 
tended  to  the  whole  of  the  public  domain,  as  represent 
ed,  but  to  that  portion  in  the  new  states  respectively, 
within  whose  limits  they  lie ;  the  greater  part  of  which 
are  mere  remnants,  which  have  long  since  been  offered 
for  sale,  without  being  sold. 

"  The  conditions  on  which  they  are  proposed  to  be 
ceded  or  sold  are  drawn  up  with  the  greatest  care,  and 
with  the  strictest  provisions  to  insure  their  fulfilment ; 
one  of  which  is,  that  the  state  should  pay  65  per  cent. 
of  the  gross  proceeds  of  the  sale  to  the  General  Gov 
ernment,  and  retain  only  35  per  cent,  for  the  trouble, 
expense,  and  responsibility  attending  their  administra 
tion.  Another  is,  that  the  existing  laws,  as  they  stand, 
except  so  far  as  they  may  be  modified  or  authorized  to 
be  modified  by  the  act  of  cession,  shall  remain  un 
changed,  unless  altered  by  the  joint  consent  of  the 
General  Government  and  the  several  states.  They  are 
respectively  authorized,  if  they  should  think  proper,  to 
adopt  a  system  of  graduation  and  preemption  within 
well-defined  and  safe  limits  prescribed  in  the  conditions ; 
and  the  General  Government  is  authorized  to  appoint 
officers  in  the  several  states,  to  whom  its  share  of  the 
proceeds  of  the  sale  shall  be  directly  paid,  without 


390  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1841 

going  into  the  state  treasury ;  and  these  conditions  are 
put  under  the  guardianship  of  the  courts,  by  providing, 
if  they  shall  be  violated,  that  all  after  rules  by  the  state 
shall  be  null  and  void.  So  far  from  this  being  a  gift  or 
an  abandonment  of  the  public  lands  to  the  new  states, 
he  has  clearly  proved,  if  there  be  truth  in  figures,  that 
the  government  would  receive  a  greater  amount  of 
revenue  from  the  lands  in  the  new  states,  under  the 
system  he  proposes,  than  under  the  present.  These 
demonstrations  are  based  on  calculations  which  neither 
have  nor  can  be  impugned. 

"  But  his  views  extended  far  beyond  dollars  and  cents 
in  bringing  forward  the  measure.  He  proposed  to 
effect  by  it  the  high  political  objects  of  placing  the  new 
states  on  the  same  footing  of  equality  and  independence 
with  the  old,  in  reference  to  their  domain ;  to  cut  off 
the  vast  amount  of  patronage  which  the  public  lands 
place  in  the  hand  of  the  executive ;  to  withdraw  them 
as  one  of  the  stakes,  from  the  presidential  game ;  to 
diminish  by  one  fourth  the  business  of  Congress,  and 
with  it  the  length  and  expense  of  its  session ;  to  enlist 
the  government  of  the  new  states  on  the  side  of  the 
General  Government ;  to  aid  in  a  more  careful  adminis 
tration  of  the  rest  of  the  public  domain,  and  thereby 
prevent  the  whole  of  it  from  becoming  the  property 
of  the  occupants  from  possession ;  and,  finally,  to  pre 
vent  the  too  rapid  extinction  of  Indian  titles  in  propor 
tion  to  the  demand  for  lands  from  the  increase  of  popu 
lation,  which  he  shows  to  be  pregnant  with  great  em 
barrassment  and  danger.  These  are  great  objects,  of 
high  political  import ;  and  if  they  could  be  effected  by 
the  measure  proposed,  it  is  justly  entitled  to  be  ranked 


1841.]  WHIG    MEASURES.  391 

among  the  wisest  and  most  politic  ever  brought  for 
ward.  That  they  can  be  effected,  it  is  almost  impos 
sible  for  any  well-informed  and  dispassionate  mind  de 
liberately  to  read  the  speeches  and  documents  referred 
to,  and  to  doubt."* 

What  would  have  been  the  policy  pursued  by  Gen 
eral  Harrison  in  his  administration  of  the  government, 
we  can  only  conjecture.  His  cabinet  was  composed 
of  decided  Whigs ;  and  there  is  every  reason  to  sup 
pose  he  would  have  approved  the  measures  subsequently 
proposed  by  their  friends  in  Congress.  But  the  hand 
of  Providence  removed  him  by  death,  shortly  after  his 
inauguration,  and  Mr.  Tyler  succeeded  him  in  the 
presidential  office.  Previous  to  this  time,  an  extra 
session  of  Congress  had  been  called,  upon  the  urgent 
solicitation  of  leading  Whigs,  who  were  in  haste  to  undo 
the  legislation  of  former  years,  and  to  establish,  as  far 
as  they  could  by  statute,  the  Utopia  in  governmental 
policy  which  had  long  been  the  subject  alike  of  their 
dreams  and  their  hopes. 

Congress  assembled  for  the  extra  session  on  the  last 
day  of  May,  1841  ;  Mr.  Calhoun  again  appearing  in 
his  place  in  the  Senate,  to  which  he  had  been  reflected 
for  another  term.  High  in  hope,  rendered  confident 
in  tone  and  overbearing  in  manner  by  their  recent  vic 
tory,  and  full  to  overflowing  with  ardor  and  enthusiasm, 
the  Whig  members  of  the  27th  Congress  entered  the 
Capitol.  In  their  haste  to  carry  their  favorite  measures, 
they  stopped  not  for  forms  or  ceremonies.  They  fol 
lowed  without  hesitation  in  the  wake  of  their  leader 
Mr.  Clay,  who  brought  forward  and  urged  the  adoption 
•  Memoir  of  Mr.  Calhoun,  1843. 


399  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN. 

of  his  plans,  with  the  boldness  and  manliness,  and, 
withal,  the  arrogance  forming  such  prominent  traits  in 
his  character.  The  Independent  Treasury  law  was 
repealed,  against  the  votes  of  Mr.  Calhoun  and  his  Re 
publican  friends.  In  the  minority  as  they  were,  it 
seemed  impossible  to  oppose  any  checks  or  hindrances 
to  the  movements  of  the  party  in  power. 

Having  disposed,  as  they  thought  forever,  of  this 
great  Republican  measure,  the  Whigs  began  to  develop 
their  own  policy.  Their  system  of  measures,  leaving 
out  of  view  minor  and  comparatively  unimportant  prop 
ositions,  was  a  triad — the  Distribution  of  the  Land 
Revenue  among  the  states,  the  Incorporation  of  a  Na 
tional  Bank,  and  the  Revision  of  the  Tariff  so  as  to 
afford  increased  protection. 

Distribution  was  but  another  name  for  the  assump 
tion  of  the  state  debts,  and  its  obje-ct  was  to  create  a 
necessity  for  a  high  protective  tariff,  by  withdrawing 
the  revenue  derived  from  the  sale  of  the  public  lands 
from  the  treasury.  Mr.  Calhoun  opposed  it,  as  he  had 
done  at  previous  sessions ;  and  on  the  24th  of  August, 
1841,  he  delivered  one  of  his  ablest  speeches  against  the 
passage  of  the  bilk  It  was  an  effort  every  way  worthy 
of  the  cause  and  the  man.  He,  of  course,  took  the  old 
Republican  ground,  that  the  original  cession  of  the 
public  lands  was  made  to  furnish  the  General  Govern 
ment  with  the  means  of  defence,  in  opposition  to  the 
federal  doctrine  that  it  was  the  trustee  of  the  states 
making  the  cession ;  and  that  if  this  resource  were 
taken  away,  a  much  higher  tariff  would  be  needed  foi 
revenue — a  result  which  the  protectionists  were  ex 
tremely  anxious,  to  secure — and  thus  the  policy  of  a 


1841.]  THE    BANK    BILLS.  393 

high  protective  tariff  with  a  permanent  distribution  of 
the  surplus  revenue,  would  be  fastened  on  the  country 
for  all  time  to  come. 

So  palpable  were  the  objections  raised  by  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  and  other  senators  to  the  policy  of  distribution, 
and  they  were  urged  with  such  power  and  effect,  that 
a  sufficient  number  of  Whigs  united  with  them  to  pro 
cure  the  adoption  of  a  proviso  to  the  bill,  declaring 
that  the  distribution  should  cease  whenever  the  average 
rate  of  duties  collected  exceeded  twenty  per  cent. 
Before  the  law  went  into  operation,  the  Whigs  increas 
ed  the  duties  beyond  that  average,  and  it  remained  a 
dead  letter  on  the  statute  book. 

The  Bankrupt  bill  was  again  brought  forward  at  this 
session,  and  again  opposed  by  Mr.  Calhoun. 

Two  different  bills  providing  for  the  incorporation 
of  a  national  bank — the  second  one,  however,  disguis 
ing  the  project  under  the  name  of  a  fiscal  agent  of  the 
treasury — passed  both  houses  of  Congress.  Mr.  Cal 
houn  now  felt  free  to  vote  upon  the  question  as  if  it 
were  an  entirely  new  one  ;  and  as  he  was  totally  op 
posed  to  any  connection  between  the  government  and 
banks,  he  voted  against  both  measures.  President 
Tyler,  true  to  his  State  Rights  principles,  vetoed  each 
bill  in  turn.  The  Whig  party  were  confounded  and 
dismayed ;  Congress  adjourned  in  confusion,  and  the 
cabinet  was  dissolved.  At  the  ensuing  session — that 
of  1841-42 — a  fierce  onslaught  was  made,  under  the 
auspices  of  Mr.  Clay,  upon  the  President,  and  upon  his 
exercise  of  the  veto  power.  However  much  Mr.  Cal 
houn  was  disposed  to  resist  the  usurpations  of  the  ex 
ecutive  branch  of  the  government,  he  would  by  no 


394  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1842. 

means  trespass  upon  its  rights ;  and  he  regarded  the 
veto  as  one  of  the  great  conservative  features  of  the 
Constitution — a  check  upon  hasty  legislation  and  a 
protection  to  the  Executive,  the  states,  and  the  people, 
against  legislative  encroachment. 

One  of  the  ablest  speeches  he  ever  delivered  was 
made  on  this  question,  and  in  defence  of  the  veto  power, 
which  Mr.  Clay  proposed  to  take  away  in  part  from 
the  President,  by  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution. 
He  contended  that  if  the  executive  power  had  been 
unwisely  or  improperly  increased,  the  fault  was  in 
Congress — in  their  special  legislation,  in  the  high  tariff 
system,  the  collection  of  more  revenue  than  was  needed, 
the  vast  expenditures,  and  the  multiplication  of  officers 
consequent  upon  these  evils.  "  Is  it  not  clear,"  he  said, 
"  that  so  far  from  the  veto  being  the  cause  of  the  in 
crease  of  his  [the  President's]  power,  it  would  have 
acted  as  a  limitation  on  it  if  it  had  been  more  freely 
and  frequently  used  ?  If  the  President  had  vetoed  the 
original  bank — the  connection  with  the  banking  system 
— the  tariffs  of  '24  and  '28,  and  the  numerous  acts  ap 
propriating  money  for  roads,  canals,  harbors,  and  a  long 
list  of  other  measures  not  less  unconstitutional,  would 
his  power  have  been  half  as  great  as  it  now  is  ?  He 
has  grown  great  and  powerful,  not  because  he  used  his 
veto,  but  because  he  abstained  from  using  it.  In  fact, 
it  is  difficult  to  imagine  a  case  in  which  its  application 
can  tend  to  enlarge  his  power,  except  it  be  the  case  of 
an  act  intended  to  repeal  a  law  calculated  to  increase 
his  power,  or  to  restore  the  authority  of  one  which,  by 
an  arbitrary  construction  of  his  power,  he  has  set 
aside."  He  also  denied,  most  emphatically,  that  this 


1842.]       DEFENCE  OF  THE  VETO  POWER.         395 

was  a  government  in  which  the  numerical  majority 
were  alone  potential,  as  was  contended  by  the  Whigs, 
who  affirmed  that  the  people  had  decided  in  favor  of 
their  measures  by  the  election  of  General  Harrison, 
although  they  made  no  declaration  of  their  principles 
whatsoever.  But  he  held  that  this  was  a  government  in 
which  the  states  were  heard,  and  one  in  which  the  rights 
of  the  minority  were  respected.  This  was  done  by  the 
division  of  the  legislative  power  into  three  branches ; 
and  to  remove  one  of  them,  as  must  be  the  effect  of 
abolishing  or  restricting  the  veto,  would  be  to  destroy 
the  beauty  and  harmony  of  the  whole  system. 

Early  in  this  session,  Mr.  Clay  had  introduced  a 
series  of  resolutions  expressive  of  his  views  in  relation 
to  the  revenues  and  expenditures  of  the  government. 
He  avowed  himself  friendly  to  the  general  principles 
of  the  Compromise  act  and  the  advalorem  feature; 
proposed  to  raise  no  more  revenue  than  was  necessary 
for  the  economical  administration  of  the  government ; 
and  disapproved  of  any  resort  to  loans  or  treasury  notes, 
in  time  of  peace,  except  to  meet  temporary  deficits. 
So  far  Mr.  Calhoun  agreed  with  him :  But  he  further 
proposed  to  raise  all  the  revenue  from  customs,  to  sur 
render  the  land  fund  to  the  states,  and  to  repeal  the 
proviso  in  the  distribution  act ;  and  upon  these  points 
they  wholly  disagreed.  Mr.  Calhoun  spoke  on  the 
resolutions,  on  the  16th  of  March,  and  protested  in 
earnest  terms  against  any  departure  from  the  great 
principle  of  the  Compromise  act,  that  no  duty  should 
be  imposed  after  the  30th  day  of  June,  1842,  except 
for  revenue  necessary  for  the  government  economically 
administered. 


396  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1842 

The  protest  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  unavailing.  Mr. 
Clay  himself  resigned  his  seat  in  the  Senate,  partly,  it 
may  be,  because  the  friends  of  protection  were  beseech 
ing  him  to  lend  his  aid  in  raising  the  duties  ;  and  this 
he  could  not  have  done,  without  violating  his  solemn 
declaration  made  in  1833,  that  the  compromise  act  was 
"  a  treaty  of  peace  and  amity"  not  to  be  disturbed,*  and 
departing  from  the  sentiments  avowed  in  his  speech  on 
his  resolutions,  that  specific  duties  and  discriminations 
were  unwise  and  unjust,  and  the  advalorem  principle 
was  entitled  to  the  preference. f 

But,  in  the  absence  of  Mr.  Clay,  there  were  other 
champions  of  protection  to  take  his  place,  and  the 
renewal  of  this  perilous  policy  had  been  predetermined. 
Were  it  not  for  the  disordered  currency,  the  large 
expenditures,  and  the  excessive  issues  of  paper  money 
by  the  banks,  the  influence  of  the  compromise  act 
would  have  been  healthy.  But  the  sudden  reduction 
of  the  duties,  on  the  31st  of  December,  1841,  in  the  then 
embarrassed  condition  of  the  country,  occasioned  a 
great  falling  off  in  the  revenue.  This  was  a  misfortune, 
as  Mr.  Calhoun  readily  admitted  ;  and  he  would  cheer 
fully  have  favored  any  temporary  expedient,  or  any 
moderate  change  in  the  tariff  system,  which  would  have 
made  good  the  deficiency  and  prevented  a  recurrence 
of  the  evil.  With  this  the  manufacturers  were  not  con 
tent  ;  they  wanted  to  substitute  the  old  protective 
duties  for  the  revenue  duties,J  and  to  restore  the 
specific  features  and  the  minimums. 

*  Speech  in  the  Senate,  February  15,  1833. 

f  Speech,  March  1,  1842. 

%  The  terms  protective  duty  and  revenue  duty  are  often  misapplied 


1842.]  TREATY    OF    WASHINGTON.  397 

In  the  first  place,  a  provisional  tariff  bill  was  passed, 
extending  the  compromise  act  to  the  1st  of  August,  as 
the  minimum  was  reached  on  the  30th  of  June,  1842, 
and  after  that  date  no  duty  exceeding  twenty  per  cent, 
was  to  be  collected,  nor  that  even,  as  was  thought  by 
many,  without  some  special  law.  The  provisional  bill 
required  the  duties  to  be  collected  at  the  same  rates  as 
were  collectable  on  the  1st  of  June :  it  also  postponed 
the  distribution  of  the  proceeds  of  the  public  lands,  but 
did  not  surrender  the  principle,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  and 
other  republican  senators  therefore  opposed  it.  It  was 
vetoed  by  the  President ;  and  the  act  of  1842,  establish 
ing  a  rate  of  duties  averaging  nearly  forty  per  cent  on 
the  aggregate  value  of  imports,  and  of  course  highly 
protective,  subsequently  passed  both  houses — each  by 
a  single  vote — and  was  reluctantly  signed  by  the  Presi 
dent.  It  is  almost  unnecessary  to  say,  that  Mr.  Cal 
houn  opposed  the  passage  of  this  bill  from  first  to  last. 
He  likewise  delivered  an  able  speech  against  it  on  the 
5th  of  August,  and  pronounced  it  to  be  decidedly  worse 
than  "  the  bill  of  abominations."  Its  protective  features 
were  artfully  concealed  under  specific  rates  and  mini- 
mums,  but  its  true  character  could  not  be  mistaken,  and 
it  was  generally  condemned  throughout  the  country,  by 
all  except  the  manufacturers  and  the  ultra  Whigs. 

On  the  20th  day  of  August,  1842,  the  Senate  ratified 
the  treaty  of  Washington,  or  the  Ashburton  treaty,  by 
which  the  northeastern  boundary  was  satisfactorily 

A  revenue  duty  is  one  whose  increase  would  be  followed  by  an  increase 
of  revenue,  or  which  is  already  fixed  at  the  maximum  of  revenue ;  and 
a  protective  duty  is  one  of  absolute  prohibition,  or  which  must  be  re 
duced  in  order  to  increase  the  revenue. 


398  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1842. 

settled,  by  the  decisive  vote  of  39  to  9.  Mr.  Calhoun 
voted  with  the  majority,  and  delivered  a  speech  in  favor 
of  the  treaty  marked  by  great  ability  and  power,  and 
which  elicited  the  highest  encomiums  in  England  as 
well  as  in  America.  He  had  never  doubted  the  justice 
of  the  claims  of  Maine,  yet,  as  the  United  States  had 
in  effect  agreed  to  compromise  the  question  by  sub 
mitting  it  to  arbitration,  he  approved  of  the  treaty  as  a 
fair  and  honorable  settlement  of  the  difficulty.  He 
fully  concurred  in  the  sentiments  afterwards  expressed 
so  pertinently  and  forcibly  by  Sir  Robert  Peel,  in 
reference  to  this  and  the  Oregon  question,  that  it  was 
"  the  better  policy  to  propose,  in  the  spirit  of  peace,  con 
ditions  perfectly  compatible  with  the  honor  of  each 
country,  and  not  requiring  from  either  any  sacrifice, 
territorial  or  commercial,  which  would  not  be  dearly 
purchased  by  the  cost  of  a  single  week's  hostilities."* 

*  Address  to  his  constituents  at  Tamworth,  184Y. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

The  Oregon  Question — Resignation  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Appointed  Secre 
tary  of  State — Annexation  of  Texas — Administration  of  Mr.  Polk — 
Declines  Mission  to  England — Returns  to  the  Senate — Memphis  Con 
vention — Improvement  of  Harbors  and  Rivers — Triumph  of  Free 
Trade — War  with  Mexico — Continued  Agitation  of  the  Slavery 
Question — Southern  Address — Mr.  Clay's  Plan  of  Compromise — Last 
Speech  of  Mr.  Calhoun. 

FOR  reasons  similar  to  those  which  had  influenced 
him  in  voting  for  the  ratification  of  the  Treaty  of 
Washington,  Mr.  Calhoun  opposed  the  efforts,  whether 
intentional  or  otherwise,  made  during  the  latter  part  of 
Mr.  Tyler's  administration  and  the  first  year  of  Mr. 
Folk's,  to  produce  a  war  between  the  United  States 
and  Great  Britain  on  account  of  the  Oregon  difficulty. 
He  did  not  think  that  the  title  to  the  whole  of  Oregon, 
as  high  as  54°  40',  was  entirely  unquestionable.  On 
the  contrary,  he  was  of  the  opinion,  that  the  49th 
parallel,  or  some  line  near  that,  should  be  adopted  as 
the  boundary.  As  he  regarded  this  matter,  both  par 
ties  were  committed,  by  the  negotiations  of  1818,  1824 
and  1826-27,  to  a  compromise  of  the  question  by  the 
mutual  surrender  of  a  part  of  their  respective  claims  ; 
and  at  the  session  of  1842-43,  he  delivered  a  speech  on 
the  Oregon  bill,  introduced  by  Mr.  Linn,  of  Missouri, 
which  provided  for  granting  lands,  and  for  commencing 


400  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1843. 

systematically  the  colonization  and  settlement  of  the 
territory  in  dispute.  He  opposed  the  bill,  and  insisted, 
that  it  was  neither  wise  nor  prudent,  to  assert  at  that 
time  the  exclusive  right  to  the  territory,  as  the  bill  con 
templated.  In  his  view,  the  position  of  the  United 
States  should  be  one  of  masterly  inactivity.  The  pos 
session  of  the  Pacific  coast  was  of  great  importance  to 
them,  as  it  could  not  be  doubted  that  their  authority 
would  soon  extend  from  ocean  to  ocean.  The  naval 
superiority  of  Great  Britain,  in  men  and  materiel,  if  not 
in  efficiency,  was  not  to  be  doubted  nor  denied,  and  it 
was  evident  that  she  could  dispatch  troops  and  muni 
tions  of  war  to  Oregon  with  about  as  much  facility  as 
the  United  States,  or,  from  her  East  India  possessions, 
with  even  greater  ease.  He  was  in  favor  therefore,  of 
leaving  causes  already  in  operation,  to  work  as  they  had 
done,  silently.  The  tide  of  voluntary  emigration  from 
the  older  states  and  territories  was  passing  beyond  the 
Rocky  Mountains  ;  and  it  was  more  than  probable, 
that  in  a  few  years  Oregon  would  contain  a  large 
population,  ready  and  willing,  if  the  title  of  the  United 
States  should  then  be  asserted  by  force  of  arms,  essen 
tially  to  aid  in  its  support  and  defence. 

At  the  close  of  this  session,  which  terminated  in 
March,  1843,  Mr.  Calhoun  resigned  his  seat  in  the 
Senate.  His  private  affairs  had  become  considerably 
embarrassed,  in  consequence  of  his  protracted  absences 
from  home,  and  his  inability  to  supervise  and  direct 
their  management  except  during  brief  intervals.  Of 
senatorial  honors,  too,  he  had  enough  to  satisfy  the  am 
bition  of  any  man.  Many  of  his  friends,  doubtless,  look 
ed  forward  to  his  elevation  to  the  highest  office  in  the 


1843.]  RESIGNATION    A3    SENATOR.  401 

nation, — as  they  had  a  right  to  do,  for  he  was  in  every 
way  worthy  of  this  proud  distinction,  and  would  have 
conferred  more  honor  upon  it,  than  would  have  been 
reflected  upon  himself.  Did  he  cherish  any  aspirations 
of  this  character,  they  were  confined  to  his  own  bosom, 
and  never  gave  him  a  moments'  pain.  Retired  to  the  pri 
vacy  of  his  beautiful  home  at  Fort  Hill,  in  the  vicinity 
of  Pendleton  Court  House,  he  was  far  happier,  in  the 
enjoyment  of  domestic  happiness,  and  in  the  occupa 
tions  and  pursuits  of  a  planter,  than  while  mingling  in 
the  bustle  and  turmoil  of  party  politics,  which  was 
wholly  unavoidable  while  he  was  at  Washington. 

But  as  the  war-horse  never  forgets  the  sights  and 
sounds  that  animated  him  on  the  field  of  battle,  so  he 
remembered  the  important  subjects  that  had  engrossed 
his  atteniion,  and  taxed  his  powers,  in  the  stormy 
debate  ;  and  if  he  did  not  long  to  participate  again  in 
the  strife,  his  thoughts  were  often  turned  to  the  spot 
where  "  the  war  of  words  was  high."  The  theory  of 
our  government — of  all  governments — was  still  his 
study ;  and  politics,  in  the  enlarged,  more  comprehen 
sive,  and  philosophical  sense  of  the  term,  daily  attended 
him  in  his  study  and  in  his  walks,  as  familiar  spirits 
with  whom  he  loved  to  take  sweet  counsel  together. 

On  the  28th  of  February,  1844,  Mr.  Upshur,  the  ta 
lented  and  accomplished  Secretary  of  State,  was  sud 
denly  killed  on  board  the  steamer  Princeton,  by  the  ex 
plosion  of  one  of  its  guns.  Previous  to  the  occurrence 
of  this  melancholy  event,  negotiations  had  been  opened 
between  the  authorities  of  Texas  and  those  of  the 
United  States,  for  the  annexation  of  her  territory  to 
that  of  the  latter  power. 


JOHN    CALDWELL   CALHOUN.  [1844 

Mr.  Calhoun  had  been  long  known  as  a  warm  friend 
to  the  acquisition  of  Texas.  He  was  never  of  the 
opinion  that  Louisiana  extended  beyond  the  Sabine, 
and  did  not,  therefore,  as  a  member  of  Mr.  Monroe's 
cabinet,  disapprove  of  the  surrender  of  the  American 
claim  to  the  territory  west  of  that  river.*  In  May, 
1836,  he  proposed  the  recognition  of  the  independence 
of  Texas,  by  a  resolution  introduced  into  the  Senate  ; 
in  1837,  he  voted  for  the  acknowledgment  of  her  inde 
pendence;  in  1838,  he  supported  a  resolution  declaring 
that  the  acquisition  of  Texas  was  desirable,  whenever 
it  could  be  made  with  her  consent,  and  consistent  with 
the  treaties,  faith,  and  stipulations  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  when  Texas  had  maintained  her  position  of  suc 
cessful  rebellion  for  a  period  of  nine  years,  during  which 
time  she  had  exercised  before  the  world  all  the  rights 
and  powers  of  an  independent  state,  he  did  not  consider 
it  requisite  or  necessary  to  consult  the  government  from 
whose  authority  she  had  revolted,  before  entering  into 
a  treaty  of  annnexation  with  her. 

There  were  several  powerful  reasons,  as  Mr.  Cal 
houn  thought,  which  imperatively  demanded  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas  to  the  territories  of  the  United  States. 
In  the  first  place,  it  was  important  because  of  its  prox 
imity  to  New  Orleans,  the  great  emporium  of  the  valley 
of  the  Mississippi,  and  the  liability  of  the  latter  to  be 
attacked  from  it  under  numerous  disadvantages,  in  a 
state  of  war ;  in  the  second  place,  it  was  important,  be 
cause  England  desired  to  secure  Texas  as  a  commercial 
dependency,  f  from  which  she  could  obtain  cotton,  in 

*  Address  to  the  People  of  the  Southern  States,  July  5th,  1849. 
f  See  the  Speech  of  Mr.  Houston  in  the  U.  S.  Senate, — Congressional 
Globe — 2d  session,  29th  Congress — p.  459. 


1844.]  THE    TEXAS    QUESTION.  403 

abundance,  for  her  manufactories,  and  live  oak  for  the 
use  of  her  immense  naval  establishment, — and  thus  the 
pecuniary  interests  of  the  cotton  growing  states,  which 
furnished  the  English  manufacturers  with  their  chief 
supply  of  the  raw  material,  were  likely  to  be  seriously 
prejudiced ;  and  in  the  third  place,  it  was  important, 
because  England  and  France  were  exerting  all  their 
influence  to  prevent  the  annexation,  and  the  former  had 
favored  projects  for  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Texas, 
which,  if  it  should  take  place,  could  not  fail  to  disturb 
the  peace  and  tranquillity  of  the  American  Union.*  It 
is  true,  that  the  British  Secretary  of  Foreign  affairs 
(Lord  Aberdeen),  while  admitting  the  desire  of  his  gov 
ernment  to  witness  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Texas 
insisted  that  they  had  no  intention  of  interfering  in  any 
way  with  the  institutions  of  the  United  States,  or  of 
any  portion  of  them  ;f  but  it  is  equally  true,  that  frank 
ness  never  characterized  British  diplomacy.  Lord 
Aberdeen  had  had  an  interview  with  a  deputation  of 
the  World's  Convention,  upon  the  subject  of  procuring 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  Texas  ;  and  he  had  publicly 
avowed  his  feelings  and  wishes  in  this  respect,  on  the 
floor  of  Parliament.  J  It  was  notorious,  too,  that  the 
Canadas  had  for  years  been  filled  with  the  emissaries 
of  British  abolitionists,  who  were  constantly  engaged  in 
efforts  to  promote  the  escape  of  slaves  from  their  mas 
ters  in  the  southern  states  of  the  union ;  and  it  could 
not  be  doubted  that  they  anticipated  a  much  better 

*  Letter  of  Mr.  Calhoun  to  Mr.  Pakenham,  April  18,  1844. 
f  Senate  Doc.  341 — 1st  session,  28th  Congress — p.  48. 
\  Conversation  in  the  House  of  Lords,  between  Lord  Brougham  and 
Lord  Aberdeen — See  London  Morning  Chronicle,  August  19,  1843. 


404  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1844. 

field  for  their  operations,  if  slavery  could  be  abolished 
in  Texas,  close  upon  the  borders  of  the  slaveholding 
states. 

Such  being  the  well-known  sentiments  of  Mr.  Cal- 
houn  with  reference  to  the  proposed  annexation  of 
Texas,  he  was  invited  by  President  Tyler,  who  had  re 
constructed  his  cabinet  from  the  members  of  both  politi 
cal  parties,  to  take  the  place  at  the  head  of  the  State 
Department  made  vacant  by  the  death  of  Mr.  Upshur. 
After  some  hesitation,  which  was  at  length  overcome 
by  the  importance  of  this  pending  question,  Mr. 
Calhoun  accepted  the  appointment — the  nomination 
having  been  unanimously  confirmed  by  the  Senate  with 
out  even  going  through  the  formality  of  a  reference  to 
a  committee — and  immediately  repaired  to  his  post  at 
Washington.  On  the  12th  day  of  April,  1844,  he  had 
the  gratification  of  signing  a  treaty  of  annexation  with 
the  representatives  of  the  Texan  government. 

The  treaty  was  discussed  for  several  weeks  in  the 
Senate,  but  was  finally  rejected  by  that  body,  partly  on 
account  of  political  considerations  and  the  objection  of 
the  northern  whig  senators  to  the  extension  of  the  slave 
territory  of  the  Union ;  but  mainly,  for  the  reason,  that 
the  boundaries  of  Texas  were  not  defined,  though  it  was 
well  understood  that  she  laid  claim  to  all  the  territory 
North  and  East  of  the  Rio  del  Norte,  or  Rio  Grande, 
not  belonging  to  the  United  States — the  justice  of 
which  claim  was  disputed  by  most,  if  not  all,  the  sena 
tors  who  voted  against  the  treaty.  No  provision  was 
inserted  in  the  treaty  in  regard  to  the  boundary,  because 
it  proposed  to  annex  Texas  as  a  territory,  and  the  right 
to  settle  it  would,  of  course,  belong  to  the  government 


1844.]  ANNEXATION    OP    TEXAS.  405 

of  the  United  States.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  as  soon 
as  the  treaty  was  concluded,  the  American  charge  d' 
affaires  was  instructed  by  Mr.  Calhoun  to  assure  the 
Mexican  Government  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  desired  to  settle  all  questions  between  the  two 
countries  that  might  grow  out  of  the  treaty,  or  any 
other  cause,  on  liberal  and  satisfactory  terms  ;  and  that 
the  boundary  of  Texas  was  purposely  left  undefined  in 
the  treaty,  in  order  that  it  might  be  an  open  question 
to  be  fairly  and  fully  discussed  and  settled.*  An  envoy 
was  shortly  after  sent  to  Mexico,  with  instructions  to 
make  the  same  assurances,  and  with  full  powers  to 
enter  upon  the  negotiation. f 

Meanwhile,  Mr.  Polk  had  been  put  in  nomination 
for  the  presidency  by  the  Republican  party,  as  the 
avowed  friend  of  the  immediate  annexation  of  Texas  ; 
and  at  the  election  in  the  fall  of  1844,  he  was  triumph 
antly  chosen  over  Mr.  Clay,  the  Whig  candidate,  and 
a  decided  opponent  of  the  measure.  Other  questions — 
such  as  the  protective  policy,  internal  improvements,  a 
national  bank  and  an  independent  treasury — were  like 
wise  at  issue.  Upon  these  Mr.  Polk  coincided  with 
Mr.  Calhoun,  and  the  latter  was  highly  gratified  at  his 
success. 

Public  opinion  being  now  ascertained  to  be  favorable 
to  the  annexation,  a  joint  resolution  was  brought  for 
ward  and  passed  at  the,  second  session  of  the  twenty- 
eighth  Congress,  under  which  Texas  was  at  length  an 
nexed.  On  the  accession  of  Mr.  Polk,  in  March,  1845, 

*  Senate  Doc.  341 — 1st  session,  28th  Congress — p.  53. 
f  Documents  accompanying   President's  Message,  2nd  session,  28th 
Congress. 


406  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1844. 

many  of  Mr.  Calhoun's  friends  were  quite  anxious  that 
he  should  be  continued  in  the  office  of  Secretary  of 
State,  but  he  promptly  informed  the  new  president,  that 
he  was  unwilling  to  remain  in  the  cabinet.  He  was 
not  by  any  means  unfriendly  to  the  incoming  admin 
istration,  but  he  desired  to  maintain  a  position  of  quasi 
independence,  and  he  was  daily  becoming  more  of  a 
statesman  and  less  of  a  politician.  But  aside  from  this 
consideration,  there  were  other  reasons  that  influenced 
him.  There  were,  among  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Polk, 
many  who  were  not  favorable  to  the  annexation  of 
Texas,  or  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the  manner  in 
which  it  had  been  effected  ;*  and  it  was  to  be  feared, 
that  if  Mr.  Calhoun  remained  in  the  cabinet,  they 
would  attempt  to  embarrass  the  administration,  for  the 
reason  that  he  had  been  the  most  efficient  agent  in 
securing  that  valuable  acquisition  of  territory.  He 
had  also  questioned  the  propriety  of  a  resolution  adopted 
by  the  convention  that  nominated  Mr.  Polk,  in  favor 
of  asserting  the  title  of  the  United  States  to  the  whole 
of  Oregon  ;  and  when  he  saw  an  effort  making  in  the 
north  and  west,  to  force  the  question  to  a  settlement, 
at  the  hazard  of  bringing  on  a  war  with  Great  Britain, 
he  had  opened  a  negotiation  with  the  British  minister 
for  the  adjustment  of  the  -conflicting  claims.  His 
course  in  this  respect  was  not  satisfactory  to  aU  the 
republican  members  from  the  northern  and  western 
states,  and  the  harmony  of  the  party,  for  the  time  at  least, 
was  probably  secured  by  his  retiring  from  the  cabinet. 

*  Among  the  supporters  of  Mr.  Clay  there  were  probably  as  many 
who  approved  of  the  annexation,  as  there  were  friends  of  Mr.  Polk  who 
opposed  it. 


1845.]  MEMPHIS    CONVENTION.  407 

But  Mr.  Polk  shared  in  the  feeling  common  to  the 
prudent  and  sagacious  politicians  in  both  parties,  that 
Mr.  Calhoun's  abilities — his  caution,  skill,  and  fore 
sight, — might  be  of  great  benefit  to  the  country  in  a 
diplomatic  capacity,  and  therefore  tendered  to  him  the 
mission  to  England.  This  he  declined,  both  on  ac 
count  of  the  indisposition  of  his  daughter,  and  because 
of  his  firm  conviction  that  the  Oregon  difficulty,  in  re 
gard  to  which  he  felt  great  anxiety,  could  be  settled 
only  at  Washington — that  "  the  peace,"  as  he  said, 
"was  to  be  made  here." 

Mr.  Calhoun  had  been  succeeded  in  the  Senate  by 
Judge  Huger,  but  the  expression  of  the  whole  South 
was  so  earnest  and  so  united  in  favor  of  the  return  of 
the  former  to  his  old  position,  that  the  Judge  resigned 
his  seat,  and  Mr.  Calhoun  was  chosen  to  fill  the  unex- 
pired  term.  He  would  willingly  have  retired  once 
more  to  private  life,  but  his  friends  insisted  that  the 
country  had  need  of  his  services  in  the  settlement  of 
the  Oregon  question,  and  he  yielded  to  their  wishes. 
He  again  took  his  place  in  that  august  body  of  which 
he  had  long  been  one  of  the  most  distinguished  orna 
ments,  and  had  the  proud  satisfaction  of  defending  the 
Oregon  treaty  of  1846,  and  of  contributing  to  its  rati 
fication  by  his  vote. 

In  November,  1845,  a  South- Western  Convention, 
composed  of  delegates  from  the  southern  and  western 
states,  was  held  at  Memphis,  Tennessee.  Mr.  Cal 
houn  attended  as  a  delegate  from  South  Carolina,  and 
was  chosen  president  of  the  convention.  Its  object 
was  to  promote  the  development  of  the  resources  of 
the  western  and  south-western  states ;  and  resolutions, 


408  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1846. 

and  a  memorial  to  Congress,  setting  forth  the  objects 
had  in  view,  and  the  action  required  by  the  general 
government,  were  adopted.  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  con 
cur  in  all  the  proceedings  though  approving  of  them  in 
the  main.  He  presented  the  memorial  in  the  Senate, 
at  the  first  session  of  the  twenty-ninth  Congress,  and 
on  his  motion  it  was  referred  to  a  select  committee  of 
which  he  was  made  chairman.  On  the  26th  of  June, 
1846,  he  made  a  report,  luminous  in  style  and  masterly 
in  argument,  in  which  may  be  found  his  matured  opin 
ions  upon  the  subject  of  improvements  by  the  general 
government,  more  particularly  with  respect  to  harbors 
and  rivers. 

He  thought  that  the  navigation  of  the  Mississippi 
river  and  its  navigable  tributaries,  where  three  or  more 
states  bordered  upon  them — which  was  the  main  sub 
ject  of  consideration  at  the  Memphis  Convention — 
might  and  ought  to  be  improved  by  the  general  gov 
ernment,  by  the  removal  of  obstructions.  He  derived 
the  power  to  make  these  improvements,  not  from  the 
clause  in  the  constitution  authorizing  Congress  to  pro 
vide  for  the  "  common  defence  and  general  welfare," 
but  from  that  authorizing  Congress  "  to  regulate  com 
merce  with  foreign  nations  and  among  the  several 
states."  Harbors  for  shelter  and  for  the  navy,  he  was 
of  opinion,  might  be  made  in  the  Mississippi  and  its 
tributaries  ;  but  canals  around  falls  or  other  obstruc 
tions,  could  not  be  made,  except  that  where  they  passed 
through  the  public  domain,  alternate  sections  of  land 
might  be  granted  to  aid  in  their  construction.  Where 
a  tributary  of  the  Mississippi  was  bordered  by  less  than 
three  states,  he  thought  it  should  be  improved  by  the 


1846. J       IMPROVEMENT    OF    HARBORS    AND    RIVERS.         409 

state  or  states  which  it  intersected,  or  by  individuals. 
The  same  principles  he  applied  to  other  rivers  empty 
ing  into  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  the  Atlantic,  and  the 
lakes.  He  also  expressed  the  opinion,  that  the  power 
to  regulate  commerce  embraced  the  establishment  of 
light-houses,  piers,  buoys,  beacons,  and  harbors  for 
shelter  and  the  navy,  on  the  sea  coast,  the  lakes,  and 
the  rivers  intersecting  three  or  more  states.  Commer 
cial  harbors,  he  thought,  should  be  constructed  by  the 
states ;  and  Congress  should  empower  them  to  lay  ton 
nage  duties  for  this  purpose.  The  general  govern 
ment,  he  maintained,  had  no  power  to  aid  directly  in 
the  construction  of  roads  or  canals,  but,  as  in  the  case 
of  canals  around  falls,  alternate  sections  of  the  public 
land  intersected  by  them  might  be  granted,  because 
such  improvements  were  calculated  to  raise  the  value 
of  the  remaining  sections. 

Cherishing  these  views,  Mr.  Calhoun  cordially  ap 
proved  of  the  veto  of  the  Harbor  and  River  bill  by 
President  Polk,  in  August,  1846,  and  of  the  general 
principles  of  his  special  message  on  the  subject  of  in 
ternal  improvements,  dated  the  15th  of  December,  1847. 

At  the  session  of  1845-6,  Mr.  Calhoun  was  gratified 
by  the  reenactment  of  the  Independent  Treasury  bill, 
with  some  modifications  which  experience  had  shown 
to  be  necessary,  and  doubly  so,  by  the  establishment 
of  a  new  tariff  of  duties  based  upon  strict  revenue 
principles.  The  protracted  struggle  was  brought  to  a 
close.  Free  trade  was  at  length  triumphant.  There 
was  an  end  of  distribution  sustained  by  a  protective 
tariff.  The  important  truths  which  he  had  labored  so 
long  to  establish  were  now  acknowledged  with  a  unani- 

18 


410  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1846. 

mity  that  promised  to  ensure  the  much  desired  perma 
nence  in  the  imposition  and  collection  of  duties.  The 
effect  of  this  great  triumph  was  not  confined  to  this 
side  of  the  Atlantic ;  Cobden  and  his  associates  were 
inspired  to  new  efforts  by  the  success  of  Calhoun  ;  and 
the  ablest  statesmen  of  Great  Britain,  the  Peels  and  the 
Russells,  yielded  to  the  influences  that  were  breaking 
down  the  barriers  of  commercial  intercourse.  Mr. 
Calhoun  would  have  been  more  than  human,  had  he 
not  rejoiced  to  witness  this  result  of  his  exertions.  But 
he  indulged  in  no  unseemly  expressions  of  gratification. 
"  After  a  struggle  of  two  and  twenty  years,  Truth  and 
He  had  been  successful,  but  no  personal  exultation 
sparkled  in  his  eye,  or  triumphed  in  his  words.  The 
measure  and  its  great  consequences  alone  occupied  his 
thoughts."* 

Having  aided  in  the  settlement  of  the  Oregon  ques 
tion,  and  in  the  enactment  of  the  tariff  law  of  1846, 
Mr.  Calhoun  would  now  gladly  have  returned  to  the 
peace  and  quietude  of  the  happy  home,  ever  cheered 
and  enlivened  by  his  presence ;  for  his  private  affairs 
demanded  his  attention,  and  his  health  was  considerably 
impaired.  It  was  his  misfortune,  too,  to  be  constantly 
misrepresented  by  some  of  the  friends  of  the  adminis 
tration,  who  seemed  unable  to  comprehend  the  motives 
that  prompted  him  to  vote  in  opposition  to  them,  when 
required  by  the  rigid  adherence  to  his  principles,  which 
it  was  his  pride  to  maintain.  But  the  war  with  Mexico 
induced  him  to  remain  in  the  Senate,  to  which  he  was 
reflected  for  another  term  in  1846,  and  to  continue  in 
the  position  which  he  had  graced,  and  in  which  it 
*  Mrs.  Maury's  Statesmen  of  America,  p.  183. 


1847.]  THE    MEXICAN    WAR.  411 

was  his  happy  fate  to  die,  "  with  the  harness  on  his 
back." 

Had  he  conducted  the  negotiations  for  the  annexa 
tion  of  Texas  from  the  beginning,  under  the  adminis 
tration  of  Mr.  Tyler,  it  is  highly  probable  that  our 
peaceful  relations  with  Mexico  would  have  been  pre 
served.  He  was  a  great  enemy  to  war,  and  his  policy 
was  always  that  of  peace.  He  had  long  feared  that  hos 
tilities  with  Mexico  would  ensue,  and  yet  he  thought,  to 
the  last,  a  collision  might  have  been  avoided.  Influenced 
by  these  feelings,  he  refused  to  vote  either  for  or  against 
the  act  of  May,  1846,  declaring  the  existence  of  a  state 
of  war ;  yet  he  supported  for  the  most  part  the  meas 
ures  of  the  administration,  looking  to  the  vigorous  pro 
secution  of  hostilities,  till  the  session  of  1847-8,  when 
he  proposed  resolutions  disapproving  of  the  conquest 
of  Mexico,  for  the  purpose  of  incorporating  it  into  the 
Union,  or  holding  it  as  a  province ;  and  on  the  4th  of 
January,  1848,  he  delivered  a  speech  in  their  favor. 
At  the  previous  session  he  had  suggested  the  with 
drawal  of  the  American  troops  to  a  defensive  line,  and 
the  occupation  of  the  territory  behind  it,  and  the  block 
ade  of  the  ports  of  Mexico,  till  terms  of  peace  were 
accepted.  His  resolutions  were  offered  for  the  same 
purpose,  and  he  enforced  his  views  upon  the  defensive 
policy  with  great  ability.  Before  any  final  action  was 
had  upon  his  resolutions,  the  treaty  of  Guadalupe  Hi 
dalgo  was  laid  before  the  Senate  and  ratified  with  his 
vote. 

But  a  grave  and  important  question  arose  out  of  the 
war — one  which  Mr.  Calhoun  anticipated,  and  which 
is  now  (July,  1850)  agitating  the  country  from  one  end 


412  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1848. 

to  the  other.  By  the  treaty  of  peace,  California  and 
New  Mexico  were  annexed  to  the  United  States,  and 
the  Rio  Grande  was  established  as  the  southwestern 
boundary  of  the  Union  with  the  assent  and  concur 
rence  of  the  Mexican  government.  The  Abolition 
feeling  had  been  constantly  increasing  at  the  North, 
and  the  Whig  party  there,  with  very  few  exceptions., 
and  a  considerable  portion  of  the  Republicans,  were 
more  or  less  under  its  influence,  even  though  many  of 
them  deprecated  the  constant  agitation  of  the  subject. 
Sectional  animosities  had  been  aroused ;  at  the  North, 
the  article  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  laws  of  Con 
gress  providing  for  the  recapture  of  fugitive  slaves,  had 
been  repeatedly  disregarded  or  set  at  defiance  ;  and 
questionable  measures  of  retaliation  had  been  adopted 
in  some  of  the  southern  states. 

An  effort  was  now  made  in  Congress  to  prohibit  the 
extension  of  slavery  to  the  territory  acquired  from 
Mexico,  at  the  time  of  forming  territorial  governments, 
Mr.  Calhoun  contributed  with  all  his  might  and  zeal  in 
resisting  every  effort  of  this  character,  and  on  the  27th 
of  June,  1848,  he  made  an  able  speech  in  reply  to  Mr. 
Dix  of  New  York,  on  the  bill  providing  a  territorial 
government  for  Oregon,  which  it  was  proposed  to 
amend,  so  as  forever  to  exclude  slavery  therefrom.  He 
denied  that  Congress  had  the  exclusive  right  of  legisla 
tion  over  the  territories,  and  insisted  that  it  could  not, 
by  its  action,  take  away  from  the  people  the  power  of 
making  such  municipal  regulations  as  they  pleased, 
when  state  constitutions  were  adopted.  He  also  de 
fended  the  institution  of  Slavery,  but  at  the  same  time 
contended,  that  the  abstract  question  of  Slavery  was 


1848.]  THE    SLAVERY    QUESTION.  413 

merged  in  the  higher  one  of  self-defence  on  the  part 
of  the  southern  states.  The  North,  he  said,  was  bent 
on  securing  the  balance  of  power,  and  that  once  gained, 
abolitionism  would  break  down  the  ramparts  of  the 
Constitution,  and  the  rights  of  the  states  would  no 
longer  be  respected.  At  the  session  of  1847—8,  the 
Slavery  question  prevented  the  passage  of  territorial 
bills ;  but  at  the  ensuing  session  the  subject  was  again 
agitated. 

In  the  meantime  the  presidential  election  had  taken 
place,  and  the  Whig  candidate,  General  Taylor,  who 
refused  to  commit  himself  on  the  question,  was  elected 
over  General  Cass,  the  Republican  nominee,  who  had 
opposed  the  efforts  of  the  Slavery  exclusionists.  Mr. 
Calhoun  was  much  chagrined  at  this  result,  and  when 
Congress  came  together  in  December,  1848,  he  advised 
a  meeting  of  the  members  from  the  slaveholding  states 
to  be  held,  to  deliberate  on  the  course  proper  to  be 
pursued.  His  advice  was  followed;  a  meeting  was  held; 
and  an  address  prepared  by  him  was  adopted,  which 
reviewed  the  origin  and  history  of  the  abolition  move 
ment,  and  the  aggressions  upon  the  rights  of  the  South, 
and  pointed  out  the  evils  which  must  result,  and  the 
necessity  of  united  and  harmonious  action  to  prevent 
them.  This  session  also  passed  by  without  a  settlement 
of  the  question,  and  in  the  summer  of  1849,  Mr.  Cal 
houn  had  occasion  again  to  make  known  his  opinions, 
in  an  address  to  the  people  of  the  southern  states,  dated 
at  Fort  Hill  on  the  15th  of  July,  in  reply  to  a  speech 
of  Colonel  Benton  to  his  constituents  in  Missouri, 
charging  the  former  with  having  repeatedly  abandoned 
the  interests  of  the  South,  and  with  endeavoring  to 


414  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1849. 

promote  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  Mr.  Calhoun 
defended  himself  with  more  than  his  usual  ability,  and 
sometimes  with  not  a  little  asperity.  He  retraced  his 
whole  course  in  public  life,  and  insisted  that  he  had 
ever  been,  as  he  ever  should  be,  firm  in  maintaining 
the  rights  of  the  slaveholding  states  under  the  com 
promises  of  the  Constitution,  and  faithful  to  the  Union 
so  long  as  it  could  be  preserved  in  the  spirit  of  its  in 
ception. 

When  Congress  again  came  together,  Mr.  Calhoun 
was  in  feeble  health,  in  consequence  of  a  pulmonary 
complaint  of  long  standing  which  had  been  for  some 
time  growing  upon  him  more  rapidly  than  it  had  done, 
for  the  reason  probably,  that  his  mind  was  kept  in  a 
constant  state  of  excitement  by  the  agitation  of  the 
slavery  question.  Meanwhile  California  had  adopted 
a  state  constitution  prohibiting  slavery,  and  now  ap 
plied  for  admission  into  the  Union,  supported  by  a  favor 
able  recommendation  of  the  president,  General  Taylor. 
The  elements  of  controversy  were  at  once  roused  up 
more  fiercely  than  before,  and  the  confederacy  seemed 
about  to  be  violently  ruptured.  Various  propositions 
were  offered,  with  the  hope  of  settling  the  difficulty  for 
ever,  and  among  others,  Mr.  Clay  offered  a  series  of 
resolutions  as  a  compromise,  or  an  amicable  arrange 
ment  of  the  questions  in  controversy.  The  general  fea 
tures  of  Mr.  Clay's  plan  were, — the  admission  of  Cali 
fornia;  the  formation  of  territorial  governments  for  the 
remainder  of  the  territory  acquired  from  Mexico,  with-  • 
out  containing  any  provision  whatsoever  in  regard  to 
slavery  ;  declaring  that  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the 
district  of  Columbia  was  inexpedient,  that  the  trade  in 


1850.]  LAST    SPEECH.  415 

slaves  brought  from  without  the  district  ought  to  be 
prohibited  therein,  but  that  Congress  possessed  no  power 
to  obstruct  the  slave  trade  between  the  states ;  and  the 
more  effectual  provision  by  law  for  the  restitution  of 
fugitive  slaves. 

Mr.  Calhoun  had  convinced  himself,  that  if  California 
were  admitted  as  a  state,  and  the  balance  of  power  thus 
assured  to  the  non-slaveholding  states,  there  would  be 
no  security  for  the  south  without  an  amendment  of  the 
Constitution.  Day  after  day,  in  the  early  part  of  the 
session,  he  took  his  place  punctually  in  the  Senate,  until 
his  failing  strength  warned  him  that  the  hand  of  the 
destroyer  was  already  upon  him.  He  then  retired  to 
his  room,  and  there  prepared  the  following  speech — the 
last  great  effort  of  his  powerful  mind.  Unable  to  deliver 
it  himself,  it  was  read  in  his  presence  by  his  colleague, 
Judge  Butler,  on  the  4th  day  of  March,  1850: — 

SPEECH    ON    THE    SLAVERY    GIUESTION. 

I  have,  Senators,  believed  from  the  first,  that  the  agitation  of  the  sub 
ject  of  slavery  would,  if  not  prevented  by  some  timely  and  effective 
measure,  end  in  disunion.  Entertaining  this  opinion,  I  have,  on  all 
proper  occasions,  endeavored  to  call  the  attention  of  both  of  the  two 
great  parties  which  divide  the  country,  to  adopt  some  such  measure  to 
prevent  so  great  a  disaster,  but  without  success.  The  agitation  has 
been  permitted  to  proceed,  with  almost  no  attempt  to  resist  it,  until  it 
has  reached  a  period  when  it  can  no  longer  be  disguised  or  denied  that 
the  Union  is  in  danger.  You  have  thus  had  forced  upon  you  the  great 
est  and  the  gravest  question  that  ever  can  come  under  your  considera 
tion,  How  can  the  Union  be  preserved  ? 

To  give  a  satisfactory  answer  to  this  mighty  question,  it  is  indispen 
sable  to  have  an  accurate  and  thorough  knowledge  of  the  nature  and 
the  character  of  the  cause  by  which  the  Union  is  endangered.  Without 
euch  knowledge  it  is  impossible  to  pronounce,  with  any  certainty,  by 


416  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

what  means  it  can  be  saved  ;  just  as  it  would  be  impossible  for  a  phy 
sician  to  pronounce,  in  the  case  of  some  dangerous  disease,  with  any 
certainty  by  what  remedy  the  patient  could  be  saved,  without  similar 
knowledge  of  the  nature  and  character  of  the  cause  of  the  disease.  The 
first  question,  then,  presented  for  consideration,  in  the  investigation  I 
propose,  in  order  to  obtain  such  knowledge,  is, — What  is  it  that  has  en 
dangered  the  Union  ? 

To  this  question,  there  can  be  but  one  answer — that  the  immediate 
cause  is.  the  almost  universal  discontent  which  pervades  all  the  States 
composing  the  Southern  section  of  the  Union.  This  widely  extended 
discontent  is  not  of  recent  origin.  It  commenced  with  the  agitation  of 
the  slavery  question,  and  has  been  increasing  ever  since.  The  next 
question  is, — What  has  caused  this  wide-diffused  and  almost  universal 
discontent  ? 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose,  as  is  by  some,  that  it  originated  with 
demagogues,  who  excited  the  discontent  with  the  intention  of  aiding 
their  personal  advancement,  or  with  disappointed,  ambitious  individuals, 
who  resorted  to  it  as  the  means  of  raising  their  fallen  fortunes.  There 
is  no  foundation  for  this  opinion.  On  the  contrary,  all  the  great  politi 
cal  influences  of  the  section  were  arrayed  against  excitement,  and  exert 
ed  to  the  utmost  to  keep  the  people  quiet.  The  great  mass  of  the  peo 
ple  of  the  South  were  divided,  as  in  the  other  section,  into  whigs  and 
democrats.  The  leaders  and  the  presses  of  both  parties  in  the  South 
were  very  solicitous  to  prevent  excitement  and  restore  quiet ;  because 
it  was  seen  that  the  effects  of  the  former  would  necessarily  tend  to 
weaken,  if  not  destroy,  the  political  ties  which  united  them  with  their 
respective  parties  in  the  other  section.  Those  who  know  the  strength 
of  party  ties,  will  readily  appreciate  the  immense  force  which  this  cause 
exerted  against  agitation,  and  in  favor  of  preserving  quiet.  But  as 
great  as  it  was,  it  was  not  sufficiently  so  to  prevent  the  wide-spread  dis 
content  which  now  pervades  the  section.  No  ;  some  cause  far  deeper 
and  more  powerful  must  exist,  to  produce  a  discontent  so  wide  and 
deep,  than  the  one.  inferred.  The  question  then  recurs,  what  is  the 
cause  of  this  discontent  ?  It  will  be  found  in  the  belief  of  the  people  of 
the  Southern  States,  as  prevalent  as  the  discontent  itself,  that  they 
cannot  remain,  as  things  now  are,  consistently  with  honor  and  safety,  in 
the  Union.  The  next  question,  then,  to  be  considered  is, — What  has 
caused  this  belief? 

One  of  the  causes  is,  undoubtedly,  to  be  traced  to  the  long-continued 


1850.]  LAST    SPEECH.  417 

agitation  of  the  slave  question  oil  the  part  of  the  North,  and  the  many 
aggressions  which  they  have  made  on  the  rights  of  the  South,  during 
that  time.  I  will  not  enumerate  them  at  present,  as  it  will  be  done 
hereafter  in  its  proper  place. 

There  is  another,  lying  back  of  it,  but  with  which  this  is  ultimately 
connected,  that  may  be  regarded  as  the  great  and  primary  cause.  It  is 
to  be  found  in  the  fact,  that  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections 
in  the  government,  as  it  stood  when  the  Constitution  was  ratified,  and 
the  government  put  in  action,  has  been  destroyed.  At  that  time,  there 
was  nearly  a  perfect  equilibrium  between  the  two,  which  afforded  ample 
means  to  each  to  protect  itself  against  the  aggression  of  the  other  ;  but 
as  it  now  stands,  one  section  has  exclusive  power  of  controlling  the  gov 
ernment,  which  leaves  the  other  without  any  adequate  means  of  pro 
tecting  itself  against  its  encroachment  and  oppression.  To  place  this 
subject  distinctly  before  you,  I  have,  Senators,  prepared  a  brief  statisti 
cal  statement,  showing  the  relative  weight  of  the  two  sections  in  the 
government  under  the  first  census  of  1790,  and  the  last  census  of  1840 
According  to  the  former,  the  population  of  the  United  States,  includ 
ing  Vermont,  Kentucky,  and  Tennessee,  which  then  were  in  their  incip 
ient  condition  of  becoming  States,  but  were  not  actually  admitted, 
amounted  to  3,929,827.  Of  this  number,  the  Northern  States  had 
1,977,899,  and  the  Southern  1,952,072,  making  a  difference  of  only 
25,827  in  favor  of  the  former  States.  The  number  of  States,  including 
Vermont,  Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  was  sixteen,  of  which  eight,  includ 
ing  Vermont,  belonged  to  the  Northern  section,  and  eight,  including 
Kentucky  and  Tennessee,  to  the  Southern,  making  an  equal  division  of 
the  States  between  the  two  sections,  under  the  first  census.  There  was 
a  small  preponderance  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  in  the  elec 
toral  college,  in  favor  of  the  Northern,  owing  to  the  fact  that,  according 
to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  in  estimating  federal  numbers,  five 
slaves  count  but  three  ;  but  it  was  too  small  to  affect  sensibly  the  per 
fect  equilibrium  of  numbers  which,  with  that  exception,  existed  at  that 
time — a  true,  perfect  equilibrium.  Such  was  the  equality  of  the  two 
sections  when  the  States  composing  them  agreed  to  enter  into  a  federal 
Union.  Since  then,  the  equilibrium  between  them  has  been  greatly 
disturbed. 

According  to  the  last  census,  the  aggregate  population  of  the  United 
States  amounted  to  17,063,357,  of  which  the  Northern  section  contained 
9,728,920,  and  the  Southern  7,334,437,  making  a  difference,  in  round 

18* 


JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

numbers,  of  2,400,000.  The  number  of  States  had  increased  from  six 
teen  to  twenty-six,  making  an  addition  of  ten  States.  In  the  mean 
time,  the  position  of  Delaware  had  become  doubtful,  as  to  which  section 
she  properly  belonged.  Considering  her  as  neutral,  the  Northern  States 
will  have  thirteen,  and  the  Southern  States  twelve,  making  a  difference 
in  the  Senate  of  two  Senators  in  favor  of  the  former.  According  to  the 
apportionment  under  the  census  of  1840,  there  were  223  members  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  of  which  the  Northern  States  had  135, 
and  the  Southern  States,  (considering  Delaware  as  neutral)  87 ;  making 
a  difference  in  favor  of  the  former,  in  the  House  of  Representatives,  of 
48 ;  the  difference  in  the  Senate  of  two  members  added  to  this,  gives  to 
the  North,  in  the  electoral  college,  a  majority  of  50.  Since  the  census  of 
1840,  four  States  have  been  added  to  the  Union;  Iowa,  Wisconsin, 
Florida,  and  Texas.  They  leave  the  difference  in  the  Senate  as  it  stood 
when  the  census  was  taken,  but  add  two  to  the  side  of  the  North  in  the 
House,  making  the  present  majority  in  the  House  in  its  favor,  of  50,  and 
in  the  electoral  college,  of  52. 

The  result  of  the  whole  is  to  give  the  Northern  section  a  predominance 
in  every  department  of  the  government,  and  thus  concentrate  in  it  the 
two  elements  which  constitute  the  federal  government — majority  of 
States,  and  a  majority  of  their  population,  estimated  in  federal  numbers. 
Whatever  section  concentrates  the  two  in  itself,  must  possess  control  of 
the  entire  government. 

But  we  are  just  at  the  close  of  the  sixth  decade,  and  the  commence 
ment  of  the  seventh.  The  census  is  to  be  taken  this  year,  which  must 
add  greatly  to  the  decided  preponderance  of  the  North  in  the  House  of 
Representatives,  and  in  the  electoral  college.  The  prospect  is,  also,  that 
a  great  increase  will  be  added  to  its  present  preponderance  during  the 
period  of  the  decade,  by  the  addition  of  new  States.  Two  territories — 
Oregon  and  Minnesota — are  already  in  progress,  and  strenuous  efforts 
are  making  to  bring  in  three  additional  States  from  the  territory 
recently  conquered  from  Mexico,  which,  if  successful,  will  add  three 
other  States  in  a  short  time  to  the  Northern  section,  making  five  States 
and  increasing  its  present  number  of  States  from  15  to  20,  and  of  its 
Senators  from  30  to  40.  On  the  contrary,  there  is  not  a  single  territory 
in  progress  in  the  Southern  section,  and  no  certainty  that  any  additional 
State  will  be  added  to  it  during  the  decade.  The  prospect  then  is,  that 
the  two  sections  in  the  Senate,  should  the  efforts  now  made  to  exclude 
the  South,  from  the  newly  conquered  territories  succeed,  will  stand, 


1850.]  LAST    SPEECH.  419 

before  the  end  of  the  decade,  twenty  Northern  States  to  twelve  Southern 
(conceding  Delaware  as  neutral),  and  forty  Northern  Senators  to  twenty- 
four  Southern.  This  great  increase  of  Senators,  added  to  the  great  in-  . 
crease  of  members  of  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  electoral 
college,  on  the  part  of  the  North,  which  must  take  place  upon  the  next 
decade,  will  effectually  and  eventually  destroy  the  equilibrium  which 
existed  when  the  government  commenced. 

Had  this  destruction  been  the  operation  of  time,  without  the  interfer 
ence  of  government,  the  South  would  have  had  no  reason  to  complain ; 
but  such  was  not  the  fact.  It  was  caused  by  the  legislation  of  this 
government,  which  was  appointed  as  the  common  agent  of  all,  and 
charged  with  the  protection  of  the  interests  and  security  of  all.  The 
legislation  by  which  it  has  been  effected  may  be  classed  under  three 
heads.  The  first  is  that  series  of  acts  by  which  the  South  has  been 
excluded  from  the  common  territory  belonging  to  all  of  the  States,  as 
the  members  of  the  federal  Union,  which  has  had  the  effect  of  extending 
vastly  the  portion  allotted  to  the  Northern  section,  and  restricting 
within  narrow  limits  the  portion  left  the  South.  The  next  consists  in 
adopting  a  system  of  revenue  and  disbursements  by  which  an  undue 
proportion  of  the  burthen  of  taxation  has  been  imposed  upon  the  South, 
and  an  undue  proportion  of  its  proceeds  appropriated  to  the  North ;  and 
the  last  in  a  system  of  political  measures  by  which  the  original  charac 
ter  of  the  government  has  been  radically  changed. 

I  propose  to  bestow  upon  each  of  these,  in  the  order  they  stand,  a  few 
remarks,  with  the  view  of  showing  that  it  is  owing  to  the  action  of  this 
government,  that  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  has  been  de 
stroyed,  and  the  whole  power  of  the  system  centred  in  a  sectional 
majority. 

The  first  of  the  series  of  acts  by  which  the  South  was  deprived  of  its 
due  share  of  the  territories,  originated  with  the  confederacy,  which  pre 
ceded  the  existence  of  this  government.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the 
provisions  of  the  ordinance  of  1787.  Its  effect  was  to  exclude  the  South 
entirely  from  that  vast  and  fertile  region  which  lies  between  the  Ohio 
and  the  Mississippi,  now  embracing  five  States  and  one  Territory.  The 
next  of  the  series  is  the  Missouri  compromise,  which  excluded  the  South 
from  that  large  portion  of  Louisiana  which  lies  north  of  36°  30',  excepting 
what  is  included  in  the  State  of  Missouri.  The  last  of  the  series 
excludes  the  South  from  the  whole  of  the  Oregon  Territory.  All  these, 
in  the  slang  of  the  day,  were  what  is  called  slave  territory,  and  not  free 


420  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

soil ;  that  is,  territories  belonging  to  slave-holding  powers,  and  open  to 
the  emigration  of  masters  with  their  slaves.  By  these  several  acts,  the 
South  was  excluded  from  1,238,025  square  miles,  an  extent  of  country 
considerably  exceeding  the  entire  valley  of  the  Mississippi.  To  the 
South  was  left  the  portion  of  the  territory  of  Louisiana  lying  south  of 
36°  30',  and  the  portion  north  of  it  included  in  the  State  of  Missouri ;  the 
portion  lying  south  of  36°  30',  includes  the  States  of  Louisiana  and 
Arkansas,  and  the  territory  lying  west  of  the  latter  and  south  of  3^°  30', 
called  the  Indian  country.  A  portion  lying  south  of  this,  with  the 
territory  of  Florida,  now  the  State,  makes  in  the  whole  283,503  square 
miles.  To  this  must  be  added  the  territory  acquired  with  Texas.  If 
the  whole  should  be  added  to  the  Southern  section,  it  would  make  an 
increase  of  325,520,  which  would  make  the  whole  left  to  the  South 
609,023.  But  a  large  part  of  Texas  is  still  in  contest  between  the  two 
sections,  which  leaves  uncertain  what  will  be  the  real  extent  of  the  por 
tion  of  her  territory  that  may  be  left  to  the  South. 

I  have  not  included  the  territory  recently  acquired  by  the  treaty 
with  Mexico.  The  North  is  making  the  most  strenuous  efforts  to  ap 
propriate  the  whole  to  herself,  by  excluding  the  South  from  every  foot 
of  it.  If  she  should  succeed,  it  will  add  to  that  from  which  Southern 
laws  have  already  been  excluded,  527,078  square  miles,  and  would  in 
crease  the  whole  the  North  has  appropriated  to  herself,  to  1,764,023, 
not  including  the  portion  which  she  may  succeed  in  excluding  us  from 
in  Texas.  To  sum  up  the  whole,  the  United  States,  since  they  declared 
their  independence,  have  acquired  2,373,046  square  miles  of  territory, 
from  which  the  North  will  have  excluded  the  South,  if  she  should  suc 
ceed  in  monopolizing  the  newly  acquired  territories,  about  three  fourths 
of  the  whole,  and  leave  the  South  but  about  one  fourth. 

Such  is  the  first  and  great  cause  that  has  destroyed  the  equilibrium 
between  the  two  sections  in  the  government. 

The  next  is  the  system  of  revenue  and  disbursements  which  has  been 
adopted  by  the  government.  It  is  well  known  that  the  main  source 
from  which  the  government  has  derived  its  revenue,  is  from  duties  on 
imports.  I  shall  not  undertake  to  show  that  all  such  duties  must 
necessarily  fall  mainly  on  the  exporting  States,  and  that  the  South,  as 
the  great  exporting  portion  of  the  Union,  has  in  reality  paid  vastly 
more  than  her  due  proportion  of  the  revenue,  because  I  deem  it  un 
necessary,  as  the  subject  has  on  so  many  occasions  been  fully  discussed. 
Nor  shall  I,  for  the  same  reason,  undertake  to  show,  that  a  far  greater 


1850.]  LAST  SPEECH.  421 

portion  of  the  revenue  has  been  disbursed  at  the  North  than  its  due 
share ;  and  that  the  joint  effect  of  these  causes  has  been  to  transfer  a 
vast  amount  from  the  South  to  the  North,  which,  under  an  equal  sys 
tem  of  revenue  and  disbursement,  would  not  have  been  lost  to  her.  If 
to  this  be  added,  that  many  of  the  duties  were  imposed,  not  for  reve 
nue,  but  for  protection,  that  is,  intended  to  put  money,  not  into  the  treas 
ury,  but  directly  into  the  pocket  of  the  manufacturers,  some  concep 
tion  may  be  formed  of  the  immense  amount  which  in  the  long  course 
of  so  many  years  has  been  transferred  from  the  South  to  the  North. 
There  is  no  data  by  which  it  can  be  estimated  with  any  certainty ;  but, 
it  is  safe  to  say,  that  it  amounts  to  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars. 
Under  the  most  moderate  estimate,  it  would  be  sufficient  to  add  greatly 
to  the  wealth  of  the  North,  and  by  that  greatly  increase  her  popula 
tion,  by  attracting  emigration  from  all  quarters  in  that  direction. 

This,  combined  with  the  great  and  primary  cause,  amply  explains 
why  the  North  has  acquired  a  preponderance  over  every  department 
of  the  government,  by  its  disproportionate  increase  of  population  and 
States.  The  former,  as  has  been  shown,  has  increased,  in  fifty  years, 
2,400,000  over  that  of  the  South,  This  increase  of  population,  during 
60  long  a  period,  is  satisfactorily  accounted  for  by  the  number  of  emi 
grants,  and  the  increase  of  their  descendants,  which  has  been  attracted 
to  the  northern  section  from  Europe  and  the  southern  section,  in  conse 
quence  of  the  advantages  derived  from  the  causes  assigned.  If  they 
had  not  existed — if  the  South  had  retained  all  the  capital  which  has 
been  extracted  from  her  by  the  fiscal  action  of  the  government,  and  if 
they  had  not  been  excluded,  by  the  ordinance  of  1787  and  the  Missouri 
compromise,  from  the  region  lying  between  the  Ohio  and  the  Missis 
sippi,  and  between  the  Mississippi  and  the  Rocky  Mountains,  north  of 
36°  30',  it  scarcely  admits  of  a  doubt  that  she  would  have  divided  the 
emigration  with  the  North,  and  by  retaining  her  own  people,  would 
have  at  least  equalled  the  North  in  population,  under  the  census  of 
1840,  and  probably  under  that  about  to  be  taken.  She  would,  also,  if 
she  had  retained  her  equal  rights  in  those  territories,  have  maintained 
an  equality  in  the  number  of  States  with  the  North,  and  have  pre 
served  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sections  that  existed  at  the 
commencement  of  the  government.  The  loss,  then,  of  the  equilibrium 
is  to  be  attributed  to  the  action  of  this  government. 

But  while  these  measures  were  destroying  the  equilibrium  between 
the  two  sections,  the  action  of  the  government  was  leading  to  a  radical 


422  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

change  in  its  character,  by  concentrating  all  the  power  of  the  system 
in  itself.  The  occasion  will  not  permit  me  to  trace  the  measures  by 
which  this  great  change  has  been  consummated.  If  it  did,  it  would 
not  be  difficult  to  show,  that  the  process  commenced  at  an  early  period 
of  the  government ;  that  it  proceeded  almost  without  interruption,  step 
by  step,  until  it  absorbed,  virtually,  its  entire  powers.  Without,  how 
ever,  going  though  the  whole  process  to  establish  the  fact,  it  may  be 
done  satisfactorily  by  a  very  short  statement. 

That  this  government  claims,  and  practically  maintains  the  right  to 
decide  in  the  last  resort,  as  to  the  extent  of  its  powers,  will  scarcely  be 
denied  by  any  one  conversant  with  the  political  history  of  the  country, 
is  equally  certain.  That  it  also  claims  the  right  to  resort  to  force,  to 
maintain  whatever  power  she  claims  against  all  opposition.  Indeed,  it 
is  apparent  from  what  we  daily  hear,  that  this  has  become  the  prevail 
ing  and  fixed  opinion  of  a  great  majority  of  the  community.  Now,  I 
ask,  what  limitation  can  possibly  be  placed  upon  the  powers  of  a  govern 
ment,  claiming  and  exercising  such  rights  ?  And,  if  none  can  be,  how 
can  the  separate  government  of  the  States  maintain  and  protect  the 
powers  reserved  to  them  by  the  Constitution,  or  the  people  of  the  several 
States  maintain  those  which  are  reserved  to  them,  and  among  them, 
their  sovereign  powers,  by  which  they  ordained  and  established,  not 
only  their  separate  State  constitutions  and  governments,  but  also  the 
constitution  and  government  of  the  United  States  ?  But  if  they  have 
no  constitutional  means  of  maintaining  them  against  the  right  claimed 
by  this  government,  it  necessarily  follows,  that  they  hold  them  at  its 
pleasure  and  discretion,  and  that  all  the  powers  of  the  system  are,  in 
reality,  concentrated  in  it.  It  also  follows,  that  the  character  of  the 
government  has  been  changed  in  consequence,  from  a  federal  republic, 
as  it  originally  came  from  the  hands  of  its  framers,  and  that  it  has  been 
changed  into  a  great  national  consolidated  democracy.  It  has,  indeed, 
at  present,  all  the  characteristics  of  the  latter,  and  not  one  of  the  former, 
although  it  still  retains  its  outward  form. 

The  result  of  the  whole  of  these  causes  combined,  is  that  the  North 
has  acquired  a  decided  ascendency  over  every  department  of  this  govern 
ment,  and,  through  it,  a  control  over  all  the  powers  of  the  system.  A 
single  section,  governed  by  the  will  of  the  numerical  majority,  has  now, 
in  fact,  the  control  of  the  government,  and  the  entire  powers  of  the  sys 
tem.  "What  was  once  a  constitutional  federal  republic,  is  now  converted, 
in  reality,  into  one  as  absolute  as  that  of  the  Autocrat  of  Russia  and 


1850.]  LAST   SPEECH.  423 

as  despotic  in  its  tendency  as  any  absolute  government  that  ever 
existed. 

As,  then,  the  North  has  the  absolute  control  over  the  government,  it  is 
manifest,  that  on  all  questions  between  it  and  the  South,  where  there  ia 
a  diversity  of  interests,  the  interest  of  the  latter  will  be  sacrificed  to  the 
former,  however  oppressive  the  effects  may  be,  as  the  South  possesses 
no  means  by  which  it  can  resist,  through  the  action  of  the  government. 
But  if  there  were  no  questions  of  vital  importance  to  the  South,  in  ref 
erence  to  which  there  was  a  diversity  of  views  between  the  two  sections, 
this  state  of  things  might  be  endured,  without  the  hazard  of  destruction 
by  the  South.  But  such  is  not  the  fact.  There  is  a  question  of  vital 
importance  to  the  Southern  section,  in  reference  to  which  the  views  and 
feelings  of  the  two  sections  are  opposite  and  hostile  as  they  can  possi 
bly  be. 

I  refer  to  the  relations  between  the  two  races  in  the  Southern  section, 
which  constitutes  a  vital  portion  of  her  social  organization.  Every  por 
tion  of  the  North  entertains  views  and  feelings  more  or  less  hostile  to 
it.  Those  most  opposed  and  hostile  regard  it  as  a  sin,  and  consider 
themselves  under  the  most  sacred  obligation  to  use  every  effort  to  de 
stroy  it.  Indeed,  to  the  extent  that  they  conceive  they  have  power, 
they  regard  themselves  as  implicated  in  the  sin,  and  responsible  for 
suppressing  it,  by  the  use  of  all  and  every  means.  Those  less  opposed 
and  hostile  regard  it  as  a  crime — an  offence  against  humanity,  as  they 
call  it,  and  although  not  so  fanatical,  feel  themselves  bound  to  use  all 
efforts  to  effect  the  same  object.  While  those  who  are  least  opposed 
and  hostile,  regard  it  as  a  blot  and  a  stain  on  the  character  of  what  they 
call  the  nation,  and  feel  themselves  accordingly  bound  to  give  it  no 
countenance  or  support.  On  the  contrary,  the  Southern  section  regards 
the  relation  as  one  which  cannot  be  destroyed  without  subjecting  the 
two  races  to  the  greatest  calamity,  and  the  section  to  poverty,  desola 
tion,  and  wretchedness,  and  accordingly  feel  bound,  by  every  considera 
tion  of  interest,  safety  and  duty,  to  defend  it 

This  hostile  feeling  on  the  part  of  the  North  toward  the  social  organi 
zation  of  the  South,  long  lay  dormant ;  but  it  only  required  some  cause, 
which  would  make  the  impression  on  those  who  felt  most  intensely  that 
they  were  responsible  for  its  continuance,  to  call  it  into  action.  The  in 
creasing  power  of  this  government,  and  of  the  control  of  the  Northern 
section  over  all  of  it,  furnished  the  cause.  It  was  they  made  an  im 
pression  on  the  minds  of  many,  that  there  was  little  or  no  restraint  to 


424  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.         [1&50. 

prevent  the  government  to  do  whatever  it  might  choose  to  do.  This 
was  sufficient  of  itself  to  put  the  most  fanatical  portion  of  the  North  in 
action,  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  the  existing  relation  between  the 
two  races  in  the  South. 

The  first  organized  movement  towards  it  commenced  in  1835.  Then 
for  the  first  time  societies  were  organized,  presses  established,  lecturers 
sent  forth  to  excite  the  people  of  the  North,  and  incendiary  publications 
scattered  over  the  whole  South  through  the  mail.  The  South  was 
thoroughly  aroused ;  meetings  were  held  everywhere,  and  resolutions 
adopted,  calling  upon  the  North  to  apply  a  remedy  to  arrest  the  threat 
ened  evil,  and  pledging  themselves  to  adopt  measures  for  their  own 
protection  if  it  was  not  arrested.  At  the  meeting  of  Congress  petitions 
poured  in  from  the  North,  calling  upon  Congress  to  abolish  slavery  hi 
the  District  of  Columbia,  and  to  prohibit  what  they  called  the  internal 
slave  trade  between  the  States,  avowing  at  the  same  time,  that  their 
ultimate  object  was  to  abolish  slavery  not  only  in  the  District,  but  in  the 
States  and  throughout  the  Union.  At  this  period,  the  number  engaged 
in  the  agitation  was  small,  and  it  possessed  little  or  no  personal  influence. 

Neither  party  in  Congress  had,  at  that  time,  any  sympathy  with  them 
or  their  cause ;  the  members  of  each  party  presented  their  petitions 
with  great  reluctance.  Nevertheless,  as  small  and  as  contemptible  as 
the  party  then  was,  both  of  the  great  parties  of  the  North  dreaded 
them.  They  felt  that  though  small,  they  were  organized,  in  reference 
to  a  subject  which  had  a  great  and  a  commanding  influence  over  the 
northern  mind.  Each  party  on  that  account,  feared  to  oppose  their 
petitions,  lest  the  opposite  party  should  take  advantage  of  the  one  who 
opposed  by  favoring  them.  The  effect  was,  that  both  united  in  insist 
ing  that  the  petitions  should  be  received,  and  Congress  take  jurisdiction 
of  the  subject  for  which  they  prayed ;  and  to  justify  their  course,  took 
the  extraordinary  ground  that  Congress  was  bound  to  receive  petitions 
on  every  subject,  however  objectionable  it  might  be,  and  whether  they 
had,  or  had  not,  jurisdiction  over  the  subject.  These  views  prevailed 
in  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  partially  in  the  Senate,  and  thus 
the  party  succeeded,  in  their  first  movement,  in  gaining  what  they  pro 
posed — a  position  in  Congress,  from  which  the  agitation  could  be  ex 
tended  over  the  whole  Union.  This  was  the  commencement  of  the 
agitation,  which  has  ever  since  continued,  and  which,  as  it  is  now  a& 
knowledged,  has  endangered  the  Union  itself. 

As  to  myself,  I  believed,  at  that  early  period,  that,  if  the  party  -who 


1850.]  LAST  SPEECH.  425 

got  up  the  petitions  should  succeed  in  getting  Congress  to  take  juris 
diction,  that  agitation  would  follow,  and  that  it  would,  in  the  end,  if  not  ' 
arrested,  destroy  the  Union.  I  then  so  expressed  myself  in  debate,  and 
called  upon  both  parties  to  take  grounds  against  taking  jurisdiction,  but 
in  vain.  Had  my  voice  been  heard,  and  Congress  refused  taking  juris 
diction  by  the  united  votes  of  all  parties,  the  agitation  which  followed 
would  have  been  prevented,  and  the  fanatical  movements  accompanying 
the  agitation,  which  have  brought  us  to  our  present  perilous  condition, 
would  have  become  extinct,  for  the  want  of  something  to  feed  the  flame. 
That  was  the  time  for  the  North  to  show  her  devotion  to  the  Union ; 
but,  unfortunately,  both  of  the  great  parties  of  ihat  section  were  so  in 
tent  on  obtaining  or  retaining  party  ascendency,  that  all  other  consider 
ations  were  overlooked  or  forgotten. 

What  has  since  followed,  are  but  natural  consequences.  With  the 
success  of  their  first  movement,  this  small  fanatical  party  began  to  ac 
quire  strength,  and  with  that,  to  become  an  object  of  courtship  of  both 
of  the  great  parties.  The  necessary  consequence  was,  a  farther  increase 
of  power,  and  a  gradual  tainting  of  the  opinions  of  both  of  the  other 
parties  with  their  doctrines,  until  the  infection  has  extended  over  both, 
and  the  great  mass  of  the  population  of  the  North,  who,  whatever  may 
be  their  opinion  of  the  original  abolition  party,  which  still  keeps  up  its 
distinctive  organization,  hardly  ever  fail,  when  it  comes  to  acting,  to  co 
operate  in  carrying  out  their  measures.  With  the  increase  of  their 
influence,  they  extend  the  sphere  of  their  action.  In  a  short  period 
after  they  had  commenced  their  first  movement,  they  had  acquired 
sufficient  influence  to  induce  the  legislatures  of  most  of  the  northern 
states  to  pass  acts,  which,  in  effect,  abrogated  the  provision  of  the  Con 
stitution  that  provides  for  the  delivering  up  of  fugitive  slaves.  Not 
long  after,  petitions  followed  to  abolish  slavery  in  forts,  magazines  and 
dockyards,  and  all  other  places  where  Congress  had  exclusive  power 
of  legislation.  This  was  followed  by  petitions,  and  resolutions  of  legis 
latures  of  the  Northern  States,  and  popular  meetings,  to  exclude  the 
Southern  States  from  all  territories  acquired,  or  to  be  acquired,  and  to 
prevent  the  admission  of  any  state  hereafter  into  the  Union,  which,  by 
its  constitution,  does  not  prohibit  slavery.  And  Congress  is  invoked  to 
do  all  this,  expressly  with  the  view  of  the  final  abolition  of  slavery  in 
the  states.  That  has  been  avowed  to  be  the  ultimate  object,  from  the 
beginning  of  the  agitation  until  the  present  time,  and  yet  the  great  body 
of  both  parties  of  the  North,  with  the  full  knowledge  of  the  fact, 


426  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

although  disowning  the  abolitionists,  have  cooperated  with  them  in 
almost  all  their  measures. 

Such  is  a  brief  history  of  the  agitation,  as  far  as  it  has  yet  advanced. 
Now,  I  ask,  Senators,  what  is  there  to  prevent  its  further  progress,  until 
it  fulfils  the  ultimate  end  proposed,  unless  some  decisive  measure  should 
be  adopted  to  prevent  it  ?  Has  any  one  of  the  causes,  which  has  added 
to  its  increase  from  its  original  small  and  contemptible  beginning,  until 
it  has  attained  its  present  magnitude,  diminished  in  force  ?  Is  the  ori 
ginal  cause  of  the  movement — that  slavery  is  a  sin,  and  ought  to  be 
suppressed — weaker  now  than  at  the  commencement  ?  or  is  the  abolition 
party  less  numerous  or  influential  ?  or  have  they  less  influence  over 
elections  ?  or  less  control  over  the  two  great  parties  of  the  North  in 
elections  ?  or  has  the  South  greater  means  of  influencing  or  controlling 
the  movements  of  this  government  now  than  it  had  when  the  agitation 
commenced  ?  To  all  these  questions  but  one  answer  can  be  given.  No. 
No.  No.  The  very  reverse  is  true.  Instead  of  weaker,  all  the  ele 
ments  in  favor  of  agitation  are  stronger  now  than  they  were  in  1835, 
when  the  agitation  first  commenced.  While  all  the  elements  of  influ 
ence  on  the  part  of  the  South  are  weakened,  I  again  ask,  what  is  to 
stop  this  agitation,  unless  something  decisive  is  done,  until  the  great  and 
final  object  at  which  it  aims — the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  South — is 
consummated  ?  Is  it,  then,  not  certain,  that  if  something  decisive  is 
not  now  done  to  arrest  it,  the  South  will  be  forced  to  choose  between 
abolition  or  secession  ?  Indeed,  as  events  are  now  moving,  it  will  not 
reqjuire  the  South  to  secede,  to  dissolve  the  Union ;  agitation  will  of 
itself  effect  it,  of  which  its  past  history  furnishes  abundant  proof,  as  I 
shall  next  proceed  to  show. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  suppose  that  disunion  can  be  effected  by  a 
single  blow.  The  cords  which  bound  these  states  together  in  one  com 
mon  union,  are  far  too  numerous  and  powerful  for  that.  Disunion  must 
be  the  work  of  time.  It  is  only  through  a  long  process  and  in  succes 
sion,  that  the  cords  can  snap,  until  the  whole  fabric  falls  asunder.  Al 
ready,  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  has  snapped  some  of  the 
most  important,  and  has  greatly  weakened  all  the  others,  as  I  shall 
proceed  to  show. 

The  cords  that  bind  the  states  together  are  not  only  many,  but  various 
in  character.  Among  them,  some  are  spiritual  or  ecclesiastical ;  some 
political ;  others  social ;  others  appertain  to  the  benefits  conferred  by 
the  Union ;  and  others  to  the  feeling  of  duty  and  obligation. 


1850.]  LAST    SPEECH.  427 

The  strongest  of  those  of  a  spiritual  and  ecclesiastical  nature,  con 
sisted  in  the  unity  of  the  great  religious  denominations,  all  of  which 
originally  embraced  the  Union.  All  these  denominations,  with  the  ex 
ception,  perhaps,  of  the  Catholics,  were  organized  very  much  upon  the 
principle  of  our  political  institutions.  Beginning  with  smaller  meetings, 
corresponding  with  the  political  divisions  of  the  country,  their  organiza 
tion  terminated  in  one  great  central  assemblage,  corresponding  very 
much  with  the  character  of  Congress.  At  these  meetings,  the  principal 
clergymen  and  lay  members  of  the  respective  denominations  from  all 
parts  of  the  Union  met,  to  transact  business  relating  to  their  common 
concerns.  It  was  not  confined  to  what  appertained  to  the  doctrines  and 
disciplines  of  the  respective  denominations,  but  extended  to  plans  for 
disseminating  the  Bible,  establishing  missionaries,  distributing  tracts, 
and  of  establishing  presses  for  the  publication  of  tracts,  newspapers 
and  periodicals,  with  a  view  of  diffusing  religious  information,  and  for 
the  support  of  the  doctrines  and  creeds  of  the  denomination.  All  this 
combined,  contributed  greatly  to  strengthen  the  bonds  of  the  Union. 
The  strong  ties  which  held  each  denomination  together,  formed  a  strong 
cord  to  hold  the  whole  Union  together  ;  but,  as  powerful  as  they  were, 
they  have  not  been  able  to  resist  the  explosive  effect  of  slavery  agita 
tion. 

The  first  of  these  cords  which  snapped  under  its  explosive  force,  was 
that  of  the  powerful  Methodist  Episcopal  Church.  The  numerous  and 
strong  ties  which  held  it  together  are  all  broke,  and  its  unity  gone. 
They  now  form  separate  churches,  and  instead  of  that  feeling  of  attach 
ment  and  devotion  to  the  interests  of  the  whole  church,  which  was 
formerly  felt,  they  are  now  arrayed  into  two  hostile  bodies,  engaged  in 
litigation  about  what  was  formerly  their  common  property. 

The  next  cord  that  snapped  was  that  of  the  Baptists,  one  of  the 
largest  and  most  respectable  of  the  denominations ;  that  of  the  Presby 
terians  is  not  entirely  snapped,  but  some  of  its  strands  have  given  way ; 
that  of  the  Episcopal  church  is  the  only  one  of  the  four  great  Protestant 
denominations  which  remain  unbroken  and  entire.  The  strongest  cord 
of  a  political  character  consists  of  the  many  and  strong  ties  that  have 
held  together  the  two  great  parties,  which  have,  with  some  modifications, 
existed  from  the  beginning  of  the  government.  They  both  extended  to 
every  portion  of  the  Union,  and  had  strongly  contributed  to  hold  all  its 
parts  together.  But  this  powerful  cord  has  proved  no  better  than  the 
epirituaL  It  resisted  for  a  long  time  the  explosive  tendency  of  the 


428  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

agitation,  but  has  finally  snapped  under  its  force — if  not  entirely,  nearly 
so.  Nor  is  there  one  of  the  remaining  cords  which  has  not  been  greatly 
weakened.  To  this  extent  the  Union  has  already  been  destroyed  by 
agitation,  in  the  only  way  it  can  be,  by  snapping  asunder  and  weakening 
the  cords  which  bind  it  together. 

If  the  agitation  goes  on,  the  same  force  acting  with  increased  intensity, 
as  has  been  shown,  there  will  be  nothing  left  to  hold  the  States  together, 
except  force.  But  surely,  that  can  with  no  propriety  of  language  be 
called  a  Union,  when  the  only  means  by  which  the  weaker  is  held 
connected  with  the  stronger  portion,  is  force.  It  may,  indeed,  keep 
them  connected,  but  the  connection  will  partake  much  more  of  the 
character  of  subjugation  on  the  part  of  the  weaker  to  the  stronger,  than 
the  union  of  free,  independent  and  sovereign  States  in  one  federal  union, 
as  they  stood  in  the  early  stages  of  the  government,  and  which  only  is 
worthy  of  the  sacred  name  of  Union. 

Having  now,  Senators,  explained  what  it  is  that  endangers  the  Union, 
and  traced  it  to  its  cause,  and  explained  its  nature  and  character,  the 
great  question  again  recurs,  How  can  the  Union  be  saved  ?  To  this  I 
answer,  there  is  but  one  way  by  which  it  can  be,  and  that  is,  by  adopt 
ing  such  measures  as  will  satisfy  the  States  belonging  to  the  Southern 
section  that  they  can  remain  in  the  Union  consistently  with  their  honor 
and  their  safety.  There  is,  again,  only  one  way  by  which  that  can  be 
effected,  and  that  is  by  reviewing  the  causes  by  which  this  belief  has 
been  produced.  Do  that,  and  discontent  will  cease,  harmony  and  kind 
feelings  between  the  sections  be  restored,  and  every  apprehension  of 
danger  to  the  Union  removed.  The  question  then  is,  By  what  means 
can  this  be  done  ?  But  before  I  undertake  to  answer  this  question,  I 
propose  to  show  by  what  it  cannot  be  done. 

It  cannot,  then,  be  done  by  eulogies  on  the  Union,  however  splendid 
or  numerous.  The  cry  of  Union !  Union !  the  glorious  Union  !  can  no 
more  prevent  disunion,  than  the  cry  of  health !  health !  glorious  health ! 
on  the  part  of  the  physician,  can  save  a  patient  lying  dangerously  ill. 
So  long  as  the  Union,  instead  of  being  regarded  as  a  protector,  is  regar 
ded  in  the  opposite  character  by  not  much  less  than  a  majority  of  the 
States,  it  will  be  hi  vain  to  attempt  to  concentrate  them  by  pronouncing 
eulogies  on  it. 

Besides,  this  cry  of  Union  comes  commonly  from  those  whom  we 
cannot  believe  to  be  sincere.  It  usually  comes  from  our  assailants; 
but  we  cannot  believe  them  to  be  sincere :  for  if  they  loved  the  Union, 


1850.]  LAjTT    SPEECH.  429 

they  would  necessarily  be  devoted  to  the  Constitution.  It  made  the 
Union,  and  to  destroy  the  Constitution,  would  be  to  destroy  the  Union. 
But  the  only  reliable  and  certain  evidence  of  devotion  to  the  Constitution 
is,  to  abstain,  on  the  one  hand,  from  violating  it,  and  to  repel,  on  the 
other,  all  attempts  to  violate  it.  It  is  only  by  faithfully  performing 
those  high  duties,  that  the  Constitution  can  be  preserved,  and  with  it  the 
Union. 

But  how  then  stands  the  profession  of  devotion  to  the  Union  by  our 
assailants,  when  brought  to  this  test  ?  Have  they  abstained  from  viola 
ting  the  Constitution?  Let  the  many  acts  passed  by  the  Northern 
States  to  set  aside  and  annul  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  providing  for 
the  delivery  of  fugitive  slaves,  answer.  I  cite  this,  not  that  it  is  the 
only  instance  (for  there  are  many  others),  but  because  the  violation,  in 
this  particular,  is  too  notorious  and  palpable  to  be  denied.  Again,  have 
they  stood  forth  faithfully  to  repel  violations  of  the  Constitution  ?  Let 
their-  course  in  reference  to  the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question,  which 
was  commenced  and  has  been  carried  on,  for  fifteen  years,  avowedly 
for  the  purpose  of  abolishing  slavery  in  the  States — an  object  all 
acknowledged  to  be  unconstitutional — answer.  Let  them  show  a  single 
instance,  during  this  long  period,  in  which  they  have  denounced  the 
agitators,  or  their  many  attempts  to  effect  what  is  admitted  to  be  un 
constitutional,  or  a  single  measure  which  they  have  brought  forward  for 
that  purpose.  How  can  we,  with  all  these  facts  before  us,  believe  that 
they  are  sincere  in  their  profession  of  devotion  to  the  Union,  or  avoid 
believing  that  by  assuming  the  cloak  of  patriotism,  their  profession  is 
but  intended  to  increase  the  vigor  of  their  assaults,  and  to  weaken  the 
force  of  our  resistance  ? 

Nor  can  we  regard  the  profession  of  devotion  to  the  Union,  on  the 
part  of  those  who  are  not  our  assailants,  as  sincere,  when  they  pronounce 
eulogies  upon  the  Union  evidently  with  the  intent  of  charging  tis  with 
disunion,  without  uttering  one  word  of  denunciation  against  our  assail 
ants.  If  friends  of  the  Union,  their  course  should  be  to  unite  with  us  in 
repelling  these  assaults,  and  denouncing  the  authors  as  enemies  of  the 
Union.  Why  they  avoid  this  and  pursue  the  course  they  obviously  do, 
it  is  for  them  to  explain. 

Nor  can  the  Union  be  saved  by  invoking  the  name  of  the  illustrious 
Southerner,  whose  mortal  remains  repose  on  the  western  bank  of  the 
Potomac.  He  was  one  of  us — a  slaveholder  and  a  planter.  We  have 
studied  his  history,  and  find  nothing  in  it  to  justify  submission  to 


430  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850 

wrong.  On  the  contrary,  his  great  fame  rests  on  the  solid  foundation, 
that  while  he  was  careful  to  avoid  doing  wrong  to  others,  he  was 
prompt  and  decided  in  repelling  wrong.  I  trust  that,  in  this  respect, 
we  profited  by  his  example. 

Nor  can  we  find  anything  in  his  history  to  deter  us  from  seceding 
from  the  Union,  should  it  fail  to  fulfil  the  objects  for  which  it  was  in 
stituted,  by  being  permanently  and  hopelessly  converted  into  the  means 
of  oppression  instead  of  protection.  On  the  contrary,  we  find  much  in 
his  example  to  encourage  us,  should  we  be  forced  to  the  extremity  of 
deciding  between  submission  and  disunion. 

There  existed  then  as  well  as  now,  a  union — that  between  the  parent 
country  and  her  then  colonies.  It  was  a  union  that  had  much  to  en 
dear  it  to  the  people  of  the  colonies.  Under  its  protecting  and  super 
intending  care,  the  colonies  were  planted,  and  grew  up  and  prospered 
through  a  long  course  of  years,  until  they  became  populous  and 
wealthy.  Its  benefits  were  not  limited  to  them.  Their  extensive  agri 
cultural  and  other  productions  gave  birth  to  a  flourishing  commerce, 
which  richly  rewarded  the  parent  country  for  the  trouble  and  expense 
of  establishing  and  protecting  them.  Washington  was  born  and  nur 
tured,  and  grew  up  to  manhood  under  that  union.  He  acquired  his 
early  distinction  in  its  service ;  and  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
that  he  was  devotedly  attached  to  it.  But  his  devotion  was  a  rational 
one.  He  was  attached  to  it,  not  as  an  end,  but  as  a  means  to  an  end. 
When  it  failed  to  fulfil  its  end,  and,  instead  of  affording  protection,  was 
converted  into  the  means  of  oppressing  the  colonies,  he  did  not  hesi 
tate  to  draw  his  sword  and  head  the  great  movement  by  which  that 
union  was  forever  severed,  and  the  independence  of  these  States  estab 
lished.  This  was  the  great  and  crowning  glory  of  his  life,  which  has 
spread  his  fame  over  the  whole  globe,  and  will  transmit  it  to  the  latest 
posterity. 

Nor  can  the  plan  proposed  by  the  distinguished  Senator  from  Ken 
tucky,  nor  that  of  the  administration,  save  the  Union.  I  shall  pass  by, 
without  remark,  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Senator,  and  proceed  directly 
to  the  consideration  of  that  of  the  administration.  I  however  assure 
the  distinguished  and  able  Senator,  that  in  taking  this  course,  no  disre 
spect  whatever  is  intended  to  him  or  to  his  plan.  I  have  adopted  it,  be 
cause  so  many  Senators  of  distinguished  abilities,  who  were  present 
when  he  delivered  his  speech  and  explanation  of  his  plan,  and  who  were 
fully  capable  to  do  justice  to  the  side  they  support,  have  replied  to  him 


1850.]  LAST    SPEECH.  431 

The  plan  of  the  administration  cannot  save  the  Union,  because  it 
can  have  no  effect  towards  satisfying  the  States  composing  the  southern 
section  of  the  Union,  that  they  can  consistently  with  safety  and  honor 
remain  in  the  Union.  It  is,  in  fact,  but  a  modification  of  the  Wilmot 
proviso.  It  proposes  to  effect  the  same  object — to  exclude  the  South 
from  all  the  territory  acquired  by  the  Mexican  treaty.  It  is  well 
known,  that  the  South  is  united  against  the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  has 
committed  itself  by  solemn  resolutions  to  resist,  should  it  be  adopted. 
Its  opposition  is  not  to  the  name,  but  to  that  which  it  proposes  to  effect. 
That  the  Southern  States  hold  it  to  be  unconstitutional,  unjust,  incon 
sistent  with  their  equality  as  members  of  the  common  Uuion,  and  cal 
culated  to  destroy  irretrievably,  the  equilibrium  between  the  two  sec 
tions.  These  objections  equally  apply  to  what,  for  brevity,  I  will  call 
the  Executive  proviso.  There  is  no  difference  between  it  and  the  Wil 
mot,  except  in  the  mode  of  effecting  the  object ;  and  in  that  respect,  I 
must  say,  that  the  latter  is  much  the  least  objectionable.  It  goes  to  its 
object  openly,  boldly,  and  directly.  It  claims  for  Congress  unlimited 
power  over  the  territories,  and  proposes  to  assert  it  over  the  territories 
acquired  from  Mexico,  by  a  positive  prohibition  of  slavery.  Not  so  the 
executive  proviso.  It  takes  an  indirect  course,  and  in  order  to  elude 
the  Wilmot  proviso,  and  thereby  avoid  encountering  the  united  and  de 
termined  resistance  of  the  South,  it  denies,  by  implication,  the  authority 
of  Congress  to  legislate  for  the  territories,  and  claims  the  right  as  be 
longing  exclusively  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  territories.  But  to  effect 
the  object  of  excluding  the  South,  it  takes  care,  in  the  meantime,  of 
letting  in  emigrants  from  the  Northern  States,  and  other  quarters,  ex 
cept  emigrants  from  the  South,  which  it  takes  special  care  to  exclude, 
by  holding  up  to  them  the  dread  of  having  their  slaves  liberated  under 
the  Mexican  laws.  The  necessary  consequence  is,  to  exclude  the  South 
from  the  territory,  just  as  effectually  as  would  the  Wilmot  proviso. 
The  only  difference  in  this  respect  is,  that  what  one  pioposes  to 
effect,  directly  and  openly,  the  other  proposes  to  effect  indirectly  and 
covertly. 

But  the  executive  proviso  is  more  objectionable  still  than  the  Wil 
mot,  in  another  and  more  important  particular.  The  latter,  to  effect  its 
object,  inflicts  a  dangerous  wound  upon  the  Constitution,  by  depriving 
the  Southern  States,  as  joint  partners  and  owners  of  the  territories,  of 
their  rights  in  them  ;  but  it  inflicts  no  greater  wound  than  is  absolutely 
necessary  to  effect  its  object.  The  former,  on  the  contrary,  while  it 


432  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

inflicts  the  same  wound,  inflicts  others  equally  great,  ana  rf  possible 
greater,  as  I  shall  next  proceed  to  explain. 

In  claiming  the  right  for  the  inhabitants,  instead  of  Congress,  to 
legislate  over  the  territories,  in  the  executive  proviso,  it  assumes  th?4 
the  sovereignty  over  the  territories  is  vested  in  the  former ;  or,  to  es 
press  it  in  the  language  used  in  a  resolution  offered  by  one  of  the  sena 
tors  from  Texas,  (Gen.  Houston,  now  absent,)  "  they  have  the  same  in 
herent  right  of  self-government  as  the  people  in  the  States."     The  as 
sumption  is  utterly  false,  unconstitutional,  without  example,  and  con 
trary  to  the  entire  practice  of  the  government,  from  its  commencement 
to  the  present  time,  as  I  shall  next  proceed  to  show. 

The  recent  movement  of  individuals  in  California  to  form  a  Consti 
tution  and  a  state  government,  and  to  appoint  senators  and  representa 
tives,  is  the  first  fruit  of  this  monstrous  assumption.  If  the  individuals 
who  have  made  this  movement,  had  gone  into  California  as  adventurers ; 
and,  if  as  such,  they  had  conquered  the  territory,  and  established  their 
independence,  the  sovereignty  of  the  country  would  have  been  vested 
in  them  as  a  separate  and  independent  community.  In  that  case,  they 
would  have  had  the  right  to  form  a  constitution  and  to  establish  a  gov 
ernment  for  themselves ;  and  if  after  that  they  had  thought  proper  to 
apply  to  Congress  for  admission  into  the  Union  as  a  sovereign  and  in 
dependent  state,  all  this  would  have  been  regular  and  according  to 
established  principles.  But  such  is  not  the  case.  It  was  the  United 
States  who  conquered  California,  and  finally  acquired  it  by  treaty. 
The  sovereignty,  of  course,  is  vested  in  them,  and  not  in  the  individuals 
who  have  attempted  to  form  a  constitution  as  a  state,  without  their 
consent.  All  this  in  clear  beyond  controversy,  except  it  can  be  shown 
that  they  have  since  lost  or  been  divested  of  their  sovereignty. 

N"or  is  it  less  clear  that  the  power  of  legislating  over  the  territory  is 
vested  in  Congress,  and  not,  as  is  assumed,  in  the  inhabitants  of  the 
territories.  None  can  deny  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
has  the  power  to  acquire  territories,  either  by  war  or  by  treaty; 
but  if  the  power  to  acquire  exists,  it  belongs  to  Congress  to  carry  it 
into  execution.  On  this  point  there  can  be  no  doubt,  for  the  Constitu 
tion  expressly  provides,  that  Congress  shall  have  power  "to  make  all 
laws  which  shall  be  necessary  and  proper  to  carry  into  execution  the 
foregoing  powers,"  (those  vested  in  Congress)  "  and  all  other  powers 
vested  by  this  Constitution  in  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  or 
in  any  department  or  officer  thereof."  It  matters  not,  then,  where  the 


1850.]  LAST   SPEECH.  433 

power  is  vested ;  for  if  vested  at  all  in  the  government  of  the  United 
States  or  any  of  its  departments  or  officers,  the  power  carrying  it  into 
execution  is  clearly  vested  IE  Congress.  But  this  important  proviso, 
while  it  gives  to  Congress  the  power  of  legislating  over  territories,  im 
poses  important  restrictions  on  its  exercise,  by  restricting  Congress  to 
passing  laws  necessary  and  proper  for  carrying  the  power  into  execu 
tion.  The  prohibition  extends,  not  only  to  all  laws  not  suitable  or 
appropriate  to  the  object,  but  also  to  all  that  are  unjust,  unequal  or 
unfair,  for  all  such  laws  would  be  unnecessary  and  improper,  and,  there 
fore,  unconstitutional 

Having  now  established,  beyoad  controversy,  that  the  sovereignty 
over  the  territories  is  vested  in  the  United  States — that  is  in  the  several 
States  composing  the  Union — and  that  the  power  of  legislating  over 
them  is  expressly  vested  in  Congress,  it  follows  that  the  individuals  in 
California  who  have  undertaken  to  form  a  constitution  and  a  State,  and 
to  exercise  the  power  of  legislation,  without  the  consent  of  Congress, 
have  usurped  the  sovereignty  of  the  States  and  the  authority  of  Con 
gress,  and  have  acted  in  open  defiance  of  both.  In  other  words,  what 
they  have  done  is  revolutionary  and  rebellious  in  its  character,  anarchical 
in  its  tendency,  and  calculated  to  lead  to  the  most  dangerous  conse 
quences.  Had  they  acted  from  premeditation  and  design,  it  would 
have  been  in  fact  an  actual  rebellion,  but  such  is  not  the  case.  The 
blame  lies  much  less  upon  them,  than  upon  those  who  have  induced 
them  to  take  a  course  so  unconstitutional  and  dangerous.  They  have 
been  led  into  it  by  language  held  here,  and  the  course  pursued  by  the 
executive  branch  of  the  government. 

I  have  not  seen  the  answer  of  the  Executive  to  the  calls  made  by  the 
two  houses  of  Congress,  for  information  as  to  the  course  which  it  took, 
or  the  part  which  it  acted,  in  reference  to  what  was  done  in  California. 
I  understand  the  answers  have  not  yet  been  printed.  But  there  is 
enough  known  to  justify  the  assertion,  that  those  who  profess  to  repre 
sent  and  act  under  the  authority  of  the  Executive,  have  advised,  aided, 
and  encouraged  the  movement  which  terminated  in  forming  what  they 
call  a  constitution  and  a  state.  General  Eiley,  who  professed  to  act  as 
civil  Governor,  called  tlie  convention,  determined  on  the  number  and 
distribution  of  the  delegates,  appointed  the  time  and  place  of  its  meet 
ing,  was  present  during  the  session,  and  gave  its  proceedings  his  appro 
bation  and  sanction.  If  he  acted  without  authority,  he  ought  to  have 
been  triad,  or,  at  least,  reprimanded  and  disarmed.  Neither  having 


434  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

been  done,  the  presumption  is  that  his  course  has  been  approved.  This, 
of  itself,  is  sufficient  to  identify  the  Executive  with  his  acts,  and  to 
make  it  responsible  for  them.  I  touch  not  the  question  whether  Gen 
eral  Riley  was  appointed,  or  received  the  instructions  under  which  he 
professed  to  act,  from  the  present  Executive  or  its  predecessor.  If  from 
the  former,  it  would  implicate  the  preceding  as  well  as  the  present  ad 
ministration.  If  not,  the  responsibility  rests  exclusively  on  the  present. 

It  is  manifest,  from  this  statement,  that  the  Executive  Department 
has  undertaken  to  perform  acts,  preparatory  to  the  meeting  of  the  in 
dividuals,  to  form  their  so  called  constitution  and  State  government, 
which  appertain  exclusively  to  Congress.  Indeed,  they  are  identical  in 
many  respects  with  the  provisions  adopted  by  Congress,  when  it  gives 
permission  to  a  territory  to  form  a  constitution  and  government,  in 
order  to  be  admitted  as  a  State  into  the  Union. 

Having  now  shown  that  the  assumption  upon  which  the  Executive 
and  the  individuals  in  California  acted,  throughout  this  whole  affair,  is 
informal,  unconstitutional,  and  dangerous,  it  remains  to  make  a  few  re 
marks,  in  order  to  show  that  what  has  been  done  is  contrary  to  the 
entire  practice  of  government,  from  its  commencement  to  the  present 
time. 

From  its  commencement  until  the  time  that  Michigan  was  admitted, 
the  practice  was  uniform.  Territorial  governments  were  first  organized 
by  Congress.  The  government  of  the  United  States  appointed  the 
governors,  judges,  secretaries,  marshals,  and  other  officers,  and  the  in 
habitants  of  the  territory  were  represented  by  legislative  bodies,  whose 
acts  were  subject  to  the  revision  of  Congress.  This  state  of  things  con 
tinued  until  the  government  of  a  territory  applied  to  Congress  to  per 
mit  its  inhabitants  to  form  a  constitution  and  government,  preparatory 
to  admission  into  the  Union.  The  preliminary  act  to  giving  permission 
was  to  ascertain  whether  the  inhabitants  were  sufficiently  numerous  to 
authorize  them  to  be  formed  into  a  State.  This  was  done  by  taking  a 
census.  That  being  done,  and  the  number  proving  sufficient,  permission 
was  granted.  The  act  granting  it,  fixed  all  the  preliminaries — the  time 
and  place  of  holding  the  convention ;  the  qualification  of  the  voters ; 
establishing  its  boundaries,  and  all  other  measures  necessary  to  be  set 
tled  previous  to  admission.  The  act  giving  permission  necessarily 
withdraws  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States,  and  leaves  the  inhabit 
ants  of  the  incipient  State  as  free  to  form  then*  constitution  and  govern 
ment  M  were  the  original  States  of  the  Union  after  they  had  declared 


1850. 1  LAST  SPEECH.  435 

their  independence.  At  this  stage,  the  inhabitants  of  the  territory  be 
came  for  the  first  time  a  people,  in  legal  and  constitutional  language. 
Prior  to  this  they  were,  by  the  old  acts  of  Congress,  called  inhabitants, 
and  not  people.  All  this  is  perfectly  consistent  with  the  sovereignty  of 
the  United  States,  with  the  powers  of  Congress,  and  with  the  right  of  a 
people  to  self-government 

Michigan  was  the  first  case  in  which  there  was  any  departure  from 
the  uniform  rule  of  acting.  Hers  was  a  very  slight  departure  from 
established  usage.  The  ordinance  of  '87  secured  to  her  the  right  of  be 
coming  a  State,  when  she  should  have  60,000  inhabitants.  Owing  to 
some  neglect  Congress  delayed  taking  the  census.  In  the  meantime, 
her  population  increased  until  it  clearly  exceeded  more  than  twice  the 
number,  which  entitled  her  to  admission.  At  this  stage,  she  formed  a 
constitution  and  government  without  the  census  being  taken  by  the 
United  States,  and  Congress  received  the  admission  without  going 
through  the  formality  of  taking  it,  as  there  was  no  doubt  she  had  more 
than  a  sufficient  number  to  entitle  her  to  admission.  She  was  not  ad 
mitted  at  the  first  session  she  applied,  owing  to  some  difficulty  respect 
ing  the  boundary  between  her  and  Ohio.  The  great  irregularity,  as  to 
her  admission,  took  place  at  the  next  session,  but  on  a  point  which  can 
have  no  possible  connection  with  the  case  of  California. 

The  irregularity  in  all  other  cases  that  have  since  occurred,  are  of  a 
similar  character.  In  all,  there  existed  territorial  governments  estab 
lished  by  Congress,  with  officers  appointed  by  the  United  States.  In 
all,  the  territorial  government  took  the  lead  in  calling  conventions,  and 
fixing  preliminaries,  preparatory  to  the  formation  of  a  constitution  and 
admission  into  the  Union.  They  all  recognized  the  sovereignty  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  authority  of  Congress  over  the  territories ;  and 
whenever  there  was  any  departure  from  established  usage,  it  was  done 
on  the  presumed  consent  of  Congress,  and  not  in  defiance  of  its  authori 
ty,  or  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  over  the  territories.  In  this 
respect,  California  stands  alone,  without  usage,  or  a  single  example  to 
cover  her  case. 

It  belongs  now,  Senators,  for  you  to  decide  what  part  you  will  act  in 
reference  to  this  unprecedented  transaction.  The  Executive  has  laid  the 
paper  purporting  to  be  the  constitution  of  California  before  you,  and 
asks  you  to  admit  her  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  and  the  question  is, 
will  you  or  will  you  not  admit  her  ?  It  is  a  grave  question,  and  there 
rests  upon  you  a  heavy  responsibility.  Much,  very  much  will  depend 


436  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

upon  your  decision.  If  you  admit  her,  you  endorse  and  give  your  sanc 
tion  to  all  that  has  been  done.  Are  you  prepared  to  do  so  ?  Are  you 
prepared  to  surrender  your  power  of  legislation  for  the  territories — a 
power  expressly  vested  in  Congress  by  the  Constitution,  as  has  been 
fully  established  ?  Can  you,  consistent  with  your  oath  to  support  the 
Constitution,  surrender  it  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  admit  that  the  inhabi 
tants  of  the  territories  possess  the  sovereignty  over  them ;  and  that  any 
number,  more  or  less,  may  claim  any  extent  of  territory  they  please  ; 
may  form  a  Constitution  and  government,  and  erect  it  into  a  State, 
without  asking  your  permission  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  surrender  the 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States  over  whatever  territory  may  be  here 
after  acquired,  to  the  first  adventurers  who  may  rush  into  it  ?  Are  you 
prepared  to  surrender  virtually  to  the  Executive  department  all  the 
powers  which  you  have  heretofore  exercised  over  the  territories  ?  If 
not,  how  can  you,  consistently  with  your  duty,  and  your  oath  to  support 
the  Constitution,  give  your  assent  to  the  admission  of  California  as  a 
State,  under  a  pretended  Constitution  and  government?  Can  you 
believe,  that  the  project  of  a  Constitution  which  they  have  adopted,  has 
the  least  validity  ?  Can  you  believe,  that  there  is  such  a  State  in 
reality,  as  the  State  of  California  ?  No ;  there  is  no  such  State.  It  ha.3 
no  legal  or  constitutional  existence.  It  has  no  validity,  and  can  have 
none,  without  your  sanction.  How,  then,  can  you  admit  it  as  a  State, 
when,  according  to  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution,  your  power  is 
limited  to  admitting  new  States  ?  That  is,  they  must  be  States,  exist 
ing  States,  independent  of  your  sanction,  before  you  can  admit  them. 
When  you  give  your  permission  to  the  inhabitants  of  a  territory  to  form 
a  Constitution  and  a  State,  the  Constitution  and  State  they  form  derive 
their  authority  from  the  people,  and  not  from  you.  The  State,  before 
admitted,  is  actually  a  State,  and  does  not  become  so  by  the  act  of 
admission,  as  would  be  the  case  with  California,  should  you  admit  her, 
contrary  to  constitutional  provisions  and  established  usage  heretofore. 

The  Senators  on  the  other  side  of  the  chamber  must  permit  me  to 
make  a  few  remarks  in  this  connection,  particularly  applicable  to  them. 
With  the  exception  of  a  few  Senators  from  the  South,  sitting  on  that 
side  of  the  chamber,  when  the  Oregon  question  was  before  this  body, 
not  two  years  since,  you  took,  if  I  mistake  not,  universally,  the  ground, 
that  Congress  had  the  sole  and  absolute  power  of  legislating  for  the 
territories.  How,  then,  can  you  now,  after  the  short  interval  which  has 
elapsed,  abandon  the  ground  which  you  then  took,  and  thereby  virtually 


1850.]  LAST    SPEECH.  43'" 

admit  that  the  power  of  legislating,  instead  of  being  in  Congress,  is  in 
the  inhabitants  of  the  territories  ?  How  can  you  justify  and  sanction  by 
your  votes  the  acts  of  the  Executive,  which  are  in  direct  derogation  to 
what  you  then  contended  for  ?  But,  to  approach  still  nearer  to  the 
present  time,  how  can  you,  after  condemning,  little  more  than  a  year 
since,  the  grounds  taken  by  the  party  which  you  defeated  at  the  last 
election,  wheel  round  and  support  by  your  votes  the  grounds  which,  as 
explained  by  the  candidate  of  the  party  at  the  last  election,  are  identical 
with  those  on  which  the  Executive  has  acted  in  reference  to  California  ? 
What  are  we  to  understand  by  all  this  ?  Must  we  conclude  that  there 
is  no  sincerity,  no  faith,  in  the  acts  and  declarations  of  public  men,  and 
that  all  is  mere  acting  or  hollow  profession  ?  or  are  we  to  conclude  that 
the  exclusion  of  the  South  from  the  territories  acquired  from  Mexico  is 
an  object  of  so  paramount  a  character  in  your  estimation,  that  right, 
justice,  Constitution,  and  consistency  must  all  yield,  when  they  stand  in 
the  way  of  our  exclusion  ? 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  what  is  to  be  done  with  California,  should  she 
not  be  admitted  ?  I  answer,  remand  her  back  to  the  territorial  condi 
tion,  as  was  done  in  the  case  of  Tennessee,  in  the  early  stage  of  the 
government.  Congress,  in  her  case,  had  established  a  territorial  govern- 
JHent,  in  the  usual  form,  with  a  Governor,  Judges,  and  other  officers 
appointed  by  the  United  State?.  She  was  entitled,  under  the  deed  of 
cession,  to  be  admitted  into  the  Union  as  a  State,  as  soon  as  she  had 
60,000  inhabitants.  The  territorial  government,  believing  it  had  that 
number,  took  a  census  by  which  it  appeared  it  exceeded  it.  She  then 
formed  a  Constitution  and  a  State,  and  applied  for  admission.  Congress 
refused  to  admit  her,  on  the  grounds  that  the  census  should  be  taken  by 
the  United  States,  and  that  Congress  had  not  determined  whether  the 
territory  should  be  formed  into  one  or  two  States,  as  it  was  authorized 
to  do,  under  the  cession.  She  returned  quietly  to  her  territorial  condi 
tion.  An  act  was  passed  to  take  a  census  by  the  United  States,  and 
providing  that  the  territory  should  form  one  State.  All  afterwards  was 
regularly  conducted,  and  the  territory  admitted  as  a  State  in  due  form. 
The  irregularities  in  the  case  of  California  are  immeasurably  greater, 
and  afford  a  much  stronger  reason  for  pursuing  the  same  course.  But, 
it  may  be  said,  California  may  not  submit.  That  is  not  probable  ;  but, 
if  she  should  not,  when  she  refuses,  it  will  then  be  the  time  for  us  to  de 
cide  what  is  to  be  done. 

Having  now  shown  what  cannot  save  the  Union,  I  return  to  the  ques- 


438  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

tion  with  which  I  commenced — How  can  the  Union  be  saved  ?  There 
is  but  one  way  by  which  it  can,  with  any  certainty,  be  saved,  and  that 
is  by  a  full  and  final  settlement,  on  the  principles  of  justice,  of  all  the 
questions  at  issue  between  the  two  sections.  The  South  asks  for  justice, 
simple  justice,  and  less  she  ought  not  to  take.  She  has  no  compromise 
to  offer  but  the  Constitution,  and  no  concessions  or  surrender  to  make. 
She  has  already  surrendered  so  much,  that  she  has  little  left  to  surren 
der.  Such  a  settlement  would  go  to  the  root  of  the  evil,  remove  all 
cause  of  discontent,  and  satisfy  the  South  that  she  could  remain 
honestly  and  safely  in  the  Union,  and  thereby  restore  the  harmony  and 
fraternal  feelings  between  the  sections,  which  existed  anterior  to  the 
Missouri  agitation.  Nothing  else  can,  with  any  certainty,  finally  and 
forever  settle  the  question  at  issue,  terminate  agitation,  and  save  the 
Union. 

But  can  this  be  done  ?  Yes,  easily ;  not  by  the  weaker  party,  for  it 
can  of  itself  do  nothing — not  even  protect  itself — but  by  the  stronger. 
The  North  has  only  to  will  it,  to  do  justice,  and  perform  her  duty,  in 
order  to  accomplish  it — to  do  justice  by  conceding  to  the  South  an 
equal  right  in  the  acquired  territory ;  ami  to  do  her  duty  by  causing  the 
stipulations  relative  to  fugitive  slaves  to  be  faithfully  fulfilled — to  cease 
the  agitation  of  the  slave  question,  and  provide  for  the  insertion  of  af '• 
provision  in  the  Constitution  by  an  amendment,  which  will  restore  in 
substance  the  power  she  possessed  of  protecting  herself  before  the 
equilibrium  between  the  sections  was  destroyed  by  the  action  of  this 
government.  There  will  be  no  difficulty  in  devising  such  a  provision — 
one  that  will  protect  the  South,  and  which  at  the  same  time  will  improve 
and  strengthen  the  government,  instead  of  impairing  or  weakening  it. 

But  will  the  North  agree  to  this  ?  It  is  for  her  to  answer  this  ques- 
iion.  But  I  will  say,  she  cannot  refuse  if  she  has  half  the  love  of  the 
Union  which  she  professes  to  have,  or  without  justly  exposing  herself  to 
the  charge  that  her  love  of  power  and  aggrandizement  is  far  greater 
than  her  love  of  the  Union.  At  all  events,  the  responsibility  of  saving 
the  Union  is  on  the  North  and  not  the  South.  The  South  cannot  save 
it  by  any  act  of  hers,  and  the  North  may  save  it  without  any  sacrifice 
whatever,  unless  to  do  justice  and  to  perform  her  duties  under  the  Con 
stitution  be  regarded  by  her  as  a  sacrifice. 

It  is  time,  Senators,  that  there  should  be  an  open  and  manly  avowal 
on  all  sides  as  to  what  is  intended  to  be  done.  If  the  question  is  not 
now  settled,  it  is  uncertain  whether  it  ever  can  hereafter  be,  and  we,  aa 


1850.]  LAST   SPEECH.  439 

the  representatives  of  the  States  of  this  Union,  regarded  as  governments, 
should  come  to  a  distinct  understanding  as  to  our  respective  views,  in 
order  to  ascertain  whether  the  great  questions  at  issue  between  the  two 
sections  can  be  settled  or  not.  If  you  who  represent  the  stronger  por 
tion,  cannot  agree  to  settle  them  on  the  broad  principle  of  justice  and 
duty,  say  so,  and  let  the  States  we  represent  agree  to  separate  and  part 
in  peace.  If  you  are  willing  we  should  part  in  peace,  tell  us  so,  and  we 
shall  know  what  to  do  when  you  reduce  the  question  to  submission  or 
resistance.  If  you  remain  silent,  you  then  compel  us  to  infer  what  you 
intend.  In  that  case,  California  will  become  the  test  question.  If  you 
admit  her  under  all  the  difficulties  that  oppose  her  admission,  you  com 
pel  us  to  infer,  that  you  intend  to  exclude  us  from  the  whole  of  the  ac 
quired  territories,  with  the  intention  of  destroying  irretrievably  the 
equilibrium  between  the  two  sections.  We  would  be  blind,  not  to  per 
ceive  in  that  case,  that  your  real  objects  are  power  and  aggrandizement ; 
and  infatuated,  not  to  act  accordingly. 

I  have  now,  Senators,  done  my  duty,  in  expressing  my  opinions  fully, 
freely,  and  candidly  on  this  solemn  occasion.  In  doing  so,  I  have  been 
governed  by  the  motives  which  have  governed  me  in  all  the  stages  of 
the  agitation  of  the  slavery  question  since  its  commencement,  and  exert 
ed  myself  to  arrest  it,  with  the  intention  of  saving  the  Union,  if  it  could 
be  done,  and,  if  it  cannot,  to  save  the  section  where  it  has  pleased  Provi 
dence  to  cast  my  lot,  and  which  I  sincerely  believe  has  justice  and  the  Con 
stitution  on  its  side.  Having  faithfully  done  my  duty  to  the  best  of  my 
ability,  both  to  the  Union  and  my  section,  throughout  the  whole  of  this 
agitation,  I  shall  have  the  consolation,  let  what  will  come,  that  I  am 
free  from  all  responsibility. 

Mr.  Calhoun's  position  in  regard  to  the  necessity  of 
amending  the  Constitution  was  not  generally  concurred 
in  by  the  other  representatives  from  the  Southern 
States ;  but  most  of  them,  if  not  all,  agreed  with  him, 
that  the  South  should  not  be  denied  an  equal  participa 
tion  in  the  acquired  territory,  and  that  the  true  policy 
of  the  general  government  was  non-interference,  or,  in 
other  words,  that  in  the  formation  of  territorial  govern 
ments,  Congress  should  have  nothing  to  do  with  the 


440  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALBOUN.         [1850. 

question  of  slavery,  but  leave  the  people  of  the  states  to 
be  formed  free  to  act  as  they  chose.  Non-intervention 
being  conceded,  the  owners  of  slaves  would  have  the 
same  right  to  go  to  the  territories  that  others  would, 
and  to  take  their  slaves  with  them,  just  as  others  could 
their  property.  In  this  way  the  South  would  have  an 
equal  chance,  as  Mr.  Calhoun  contended  she  ought,  in 
the  settlement  of  the  territories. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

Death  of  Mr.  Calhoun — Funeral  Honors — His  Family — Personal  Ap 
pearance — Character — Habits  in  Private  Life — Mental  Powers — 
Style  as  a  Speaker  and  Writer — Work  on  Government — Manner  as 
an  Orator — Course  as  a  Statesman — Popularity — Memory. 

FAITHFUL  to  his  duty  unto  the  end,  Death  found  Mr. 
Calhoun  at  his  post.  Feeble  though  he  was  in  body, 
to  the  very  close  of  his  earthly  pilgrimage  he  was  sus 
tained  by  the  wonderful  energy  and  power  of  an  intel 
lect  that  never  knew  what  it  was  to  be  dependent. 
Like  Chatham,  wrapped  up  in  flannels,  he  occasionally 
crawled  to  the  Senate  chamber  to  take  his  friends  by 
the  hand,  and  to  encourage  them  to  stand  firmly  by  the 
rights  of  the  South ;  and  on  the  13th  of  March,  his 
voice  was  heard  for  the  last  time  in  debate,  no  longer 
clear  as  a  trumpet,  but  often  giving  way  with  the  failure 
of  the  powers  of  utterance — quivering  from  weakness 
and  husky  with  emotion,  yet  still  indicating  the  uncon 
querable  will  and  determination  of  his  character.  It 
was  the  triumph  of  mind  over  matter, — of  the  immortal 
spirit  over  the  frail  body  that  contained  it ! 

The  last  words  of  Mr.  Calhoun  in  the  Senate  were 
uttered  on  this  occasion,  in  defence  of  his  proposition 
for  the  amendment  of  the  Constitution,  which  had  been 
assailed  by  several  senators  in  the  course  of  the  dis- 

19* 


442  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

cussion.  The  scene  was  an  exciting  one;  he  was 
nearly  overcome,  and  returned  to  his  private  room 
only  to  die.  The  slavery  question  was  the  engrossing 
subject  that  occupied  his  mind.  He  wished  to  see  the 
Union  preserved,  but  he  feared  that  the  slaveholding 
states  would  be  driven  to  secede.  His  friends  were 
not  interdicted  from  visiting  him,  and  he  conversed  with 
them  freely  until  it  was  evident  that  his  powers  were 
fast  giving  way,  and  that  his  ever-active  mind  was  wear 
ing  out  the  body.  At  intervals  he  employed  himself  in 
writing,  or  in  looking  over  his  papers :  this  taxed  his 
strength  less  than  conversation,  yet  intense  and  earnest 
thought,  like  the  vampire,  was  constantly  draining  the 
life-blood  from  his  heart. 

His  son,  John  B.  Calhoun,  who  is  a  physician,  was 
with  him  for  several  weeks  previous  to  his  death,  and 
other  friends  almost  equalled  his  filial  devotion  in  their 
kind  attentions.  On  the  30th  of  March,  it  could  no 
longer  be  doubted  that  the  hours  of  the  great  statesman 
would  soon  be  numbered.  In  the  morning  he  was 
restless  and  much  weaker  than  he  had  ever  before  been. 
He  sat  up,  however,  for  a  couple  of  hours  during  the 
day;  and  toward  evening,  the  stimulants  which  had 
been  employed  to  protract  his  life  seemed  to  have  re 
gained  their  power,  and  he  conversed  with  apparent 
ease  and  freedom,  mainly  upon  the  absorbing  topic,  the 
slavery  question.  About  half-past  twelve,  that  night, 
he  commenced  breathing  very  heavily — so  much  so  as 
to  alarm  his  son.  The  latter  inquired  how  he  felt ;  he 
replied  that  he  was  unusually  wakeful,  but  desired  his 
son  to  lie  down.  His  pulse  was  then  very  low,  and  he 
said  he  was  sinking ;  but  he  refused  to  take  any  more 


1850.]  HI3    DEATH.  443 

stimulants.  The  son  lay  down,  but  in  a  little  more 
than  an  hour  was  aroused,  by  his  father  calling  in  a 
feeble  voice,  "John,  come  to  me!"  His  respiration 
now  denoted  great  physical  weakness,  though  it  did  not 
appear  to  be  difficult.  When  his  son  approached  him, 
he  held  out  his  arm,  and  remarked  that  there  was  no 
pulsation  at  the  wrist. 

He  then  directed  his  son  to  take  his  watch  and  papers 
and  put  them  in  his  trunk,  after  which  he  said  that  the 
medicine  given  to  restore  him  had  had  a  delightful  effect 
and  produced  an  agreeable  perspiration.  In  reply  to 
an  inquiry  as  to  how  he  had  rested,  he  stated  that  he 
had  not  rested  at  all ;  but  he  assured  his  son  that  he 
felt  no  pain,  and  had  felt  none  during  the  whole  attack. 
A  little  after  five  o'clock  on  the  morning  of  the  31st,  his 
son  asked  him  if  he  was  comfortable.  "  I  am  perfectly 
comfortable,"  he  replied.  These  were  his  last  words. 

Shortly  before  six  o'clock,  he  made  a  sign  to  his  son 
to  approach  the  bed.  Extending  his  hand,  he  grasped 
that  of  his  son,  looked  him  intently  in  the  face,  and 
moved  his  lips,  but  was  unable  to  articulate.  Other 
friends  were  now  called  in,  and  a  fruitless  effort  was 
made  to  revive  him.  Meanwhile  he  was  perfectly  con 
scious,  and  his  eyes  retained  their  brightness,  and  his 
countenance  its  natural  expression.  But  the  golden 
cord  was  about  to  be  severed — and  in  a  few  moments 
he  drew  a  deep  inspiration,  his  eyes  closed,  and  his 
spirit  passed,  "  like  the  anthem  of  a  breeze,  away." 

The  death  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  announced  in  the 
Senate,  in  a  most  impressive  manner,  by  his  friend  and 
colleague,  Judge  Butler,  on  the  first  of  April.  Eloquent 


444  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

and  feeling  addresses  were  also  made  by  Henry  Clay 
and  Daniel  Webster,  the  great  rivals  of  the  deceased 
in  talents  and  in  fame.  Appropriate  funeral  honors 
were,  of  course,  paid  to  his  memory  by  the  assembled 
representatives  of  the  states.  The  sad  event  was  not 
altogether  unexpected  ;  and  it  elicited,  at  Washington 
not  only,  but  in  every  town  throughout  the  wide  Union, 
a  general  and  sincere  expression  of  regret.  Forms  and 
ceremonies  may  be  but  idle  show,  yet  this  was  the 
genuine  homage  paid  to  departed  worth. 

On  the  2d  day  of  April,  the  funeral  ceremonies  were 
held,  and  the  remains  of  Mr.  Calhoun  were  then  con 
veyed  to  Charleston,  accompanied  by  a  committee  of 
the  Senate.  They  found  a  whole  people  in  tears. 
South  Carolina  truly  mourned  her  loss ;  and  the  citizens 
of  her  metropolis,  with  all  the  outward  manifestations 
of  mourning — a  funeral  procession,  halls  and  balconies 
draperied  in  crape,  the  tolling  of  bells,  muffled  drums 
and  plaintive  music,  drooping  plumes  and  shrouded 
banners — received  all  that  was  left  of  him  who  had 
constituted  the  chief  glory  of  his  native  state,  and 
whose  greatness,  like  the  giant  pine  of  her  virgin  forests, 
towered  far  heavenward. 

The  body  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  temporarily  deposited 
in  a  vault  in  the  cemetery  of  St.  Philip's  Church, 
Charleston,  there  to  await  the  action  of  the  Legislature 
— the  family  consenting,  at  the  request  of  the  governor, 
that  the  state  should  take  charge  of  the  remains  of  her 
favorite  son.  They  are  to  be  removed  to  Columbia, 
the  seat  of  government  of  the  state,  where  a  monument 
is  to  be  erected  to  his  memory — and  thus  the  legislators 
of  South  Carolina  be  constantly  reminded  of  the  virtues, 


1850.]          PERSONAL  APPEARANCE.  445 

and  the  manly  dignity  and  character,  of  her  distinguish 
ed  statesman. 

Mr.  Calhoun  was  married  in  early  life  to  a  cousin  by 
the  name  of  Caldwell,  who  survived  him.  She  has 
ever  been  remarked  for  the  quiet  grace  and  ease  of  her 
manners,  her  unassuming  deportment,  and  the  mingled 
simplicity  and  dignity  of  her  character;  and  in  the 
private  circles  of  Washington,  once  adorned  by  her 
presence,  but  to  which  she  may  never  again  return, 
she  is  still  remembered  with  affection  and  regret.  They 
had  three  sons  :  Andrew  P.  Calhoun,  a  planter ;  Patrick, 
an  officer  in  the  army ;  and  John  B.,  a  physician. 
They  had  several  daughters,  also,  one  of  whom  married 
Thomas  G.  Clemson,  of  Pennsylvania,  late  charge 
d'affaires  to  Belgium. 

No  one  ever  saw  Mr.  Calhoun  for  the  first  time 
without  being  forcibly  impressed  with  the  conviction 
of  his  mental  superiority.  There  was  that  in  his  air 
and  in  his  appearance  which  carried  with  it  the  assur 
ance  that  he  was  no  common  man.  He  had  not  Hy 
perion's  curls,  nor  the  front  of  Jove.  Miss  Martineau 
termed  him,  in  her  Travels  in  America,  the  cast-iron 
man,  "  who  looked  as  if  he  had  never  been  born."  In 
person  he  was  tall  and  slender,  and  his  frame  appeared 
gradually  to  become  more  and  more  attenuated  till  he 
died.  His  features  were  harsh  and  angular  in  their 
outlines,  presenting  a  combination  of  the  Greek  and 
the  Roman.  A  serene  and  almost  stony  calm  was 
habitual  to  them  when  in  repose,  but  when  enlivened 
in  conversation  or  debate,  their  play  was  remarkable — 
the  lights  were  brought  out  into  bolder  relief,  and  the 
shadows  thrown  into  deeper  shade. 


446  JOHN  CALDWELL  CALHOUN.  [1850 

His  countenance,  when  at  rest,  indicated  abstraction 
or  a  preoccupied  air,  and  a  stranger  on  approaching 
him  could  scarcely  avoid  an  emotion  of  fear ;  yet  he 
could  not  utter  a  word  before  the  fire  of  genius  blazed 
from  his  eye  and  illumined  his  expressive  features. 
His  individuality  was  stamped  upon  his  acute  and  in 
telligent  face,  and  the  lines  of  character  and  thought 
were  clearly  and  strongly  defined.  His  forehead  was 
broad,  tolerably  high,  and  compact,  denoting  the  mass 
of  brain  behind  it.  Until  he  had  passed  the  grand 
climacteric,  he  wore  his  hair  short  and  brushed  it  back, 
so  that  it  stood  erect  on  the  top  of  his  head,  like  bristles 
on  the  angry  boar,  or  "  quills  upon  the  fretful  porcupine," 
but  toward  the  close  of  his  life  he  suffered  it  to  grow 
long,  and  to  fall  in  heavy  masses  over  his  temples.  But 
his  eyes  were  his  most  striking  features :  they  were 
dark  blue,  large  and  brilliant ;  in  repose  glowing  with 
a  steady  light,  in  action  fairly  emitting  flashes  of  fire. 

His  character  was  marked  and  decided,  not  prema 
turely  exhibiting  its  peculiarities,  yet  formed  and  per 
fected  at  an  early  age.  He  was  firm  and  prompt,  man 
ly  and  independent.  His  sentiments  were  noble  and 
elevated,  and  everything  mean  or  grovelling  was  foreign 
to  his  nature.  He  was  easy  in  his  manners,  and  affable 
and  dignified.  His  attachments  were  warm  and  endur 
ing  ;  he  did  not  manifest  his  affection  with  enthusiastic 
fervor,  but  with  deep  earnestness  and  sincerity.  He 
was  kind,  generous  and  charitable  ;  honest  and  frank ; 
faithful  to  his  friends,  but  somewhat  inclined  to  be  un 
forgiving  toward  his  enemies.  He  was  attached  to  his 
principles  and  prejudices  with  equal  tenacity ;  and  when 
he  had  adopted  an  opinion,  so  strong  was  his  reliance 


1850.]          CHARACTER  AND  HABITS.  447 

upon  the  correctness  of  his  own  judgment,  that  he  often 
doubted  the  wisdom  and  sincerity  of  those  who  dis 
agreed  with  him.  He  never  shrank  from  the  perform 
ance  of  any  duty,  however  painful  it  might  be, — that  it 
was  a  duty,  was  sufficient  for  him.  He  possessed  pride 
of  character  in  no  ordinary  degree,  and,  withal,  not  a 
little  vanity,  which  is  said  always  to  accompany  true 
genius.  His  devotion  to  the  South  was  not  sectional, 
so  much  as  it  was  the  natural  consequence  of  his  views 
with  reference  to  the  theory  of  the  government ;  and 
his  patriotism,  like  his  fame,  was  coextensive  with  the 
Union. 

In  private  life  he  was  fitted  to  be  loved  and  respected. 
Like  Jefferson,  Madison,  Marshall,  and  the  younger 
Adams,  he  was  simple  in  his  habits.  When  at  home,  he 
usually  rose  at  day-break,  and,  if  the  weather  admitted, 
took  a  walk  over  his  farm.  He  breakfasted  at  half-past 
seven,  and  then  retired  to  his  office,  which  stood  near 
his  dwelling  house,  where  he  wrote  till  dinner  time,  or 
three  o'clock.  After  dinner  he  read  or  conversed  with 
his  family  till  sunset,  when  he  took  another  walk.  His 
tea  hour  was  eight  o'clock ;  he  then  joined  his  family 
again,  and  passed  the  time  in  conversation  or  reading 
till  ten  o'clock,  when  he  retired  to  rest.  As  a  citizen, 
he  was  without  blemish  ;  he  wronged  no  one  ;  and  there 
were  no  ugly  spots  on  his  character  to  dim  the  brilliancy 
of  his  public  career.  His  social  qualities  were  endear 
ing,  and  his  conversational  powers  fascinating  in  the 
extreme.  He  loved  to  talk  with  the  young;  he  was 
especially  animated  and  instructive  when  engaged  in 
conversation  with  them,  and  scarcely  ever  failed  to  in 
spire  a  sincere  attachment  in  the  breasts  of  those  who 


448  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

listened  to  him.  He  frequently  corresponded,  too,  with 
young  men,  and  almost  the  last  letter  he  wrote,  was 
addressed  to  a  protege  attending  a  law  school  in  New 
York,  and  was  replete  with  kind  advice  and  with  expres 
sions  of  friendly  interest. 

He  conversed,  perhaps,  with  too  great  freedom.  He 
prided  himself  on  being  unreserved  in  the  expression  of 
his  opinions,  and  yet  this  was  a  fault  in  his  character ; 
for  in  the  transaction  of  business,  and  in  deciding  and 
acting  upon  important  political  questions,  he  was  ordi 
narily  cautious  and  prudent.  To  his  very  frankness, 
therefore,  may  be  attributed,  not  the  misrepresentations, 
but  the  occasion  of  the  misrepresentations,  of  which  he 
was  the  victim.  He  often  complained  that  he  was  not 
understood,  but  he  sometimes  forgot  that  those  who 
would  not  comprehend  him,  might  have  been  already 
prejudiced  by  some  remark  of  his,  made  at  the  wrong 
time,  or  in  the  wrong  presence. 

His  disposition  was  reflective,  and  he  spent  hours  at 
a  time  in  earnest  thought.  But  he  was  exceedingly 
fond  of  reading  history  and  books  of  travel.  Works  on 
government,  on  the  rise  and  fall  of  empires,  on  the  im 
provement  and  decline  of  the  races  of  mankind  and  the 
struggles  and  contests  of  one  with  another,  always  at 
tracted  his  attention.  Indeed,  his  whole  life  was  one 
of  study  and  thought. 

In  his  dress  he  was  very  plain,  and  rarely  appeared 
in  anything  except  a  simple  suit  of  black.  His  consti 
tution  was  not  naturally  robust ;  but  notwithstanding 
the  ceaseless  labors  of  his  mind,  by  a  strict  attention  to 
regimen  and  the  avoidance  of  all  stimulants,  his  life  was 
prolonged  almost  to  the  allotted  three  score  and  ten. 


1850.]  MENTAL   POWERS.  449 

To  say  that  he  possessed  a  great  mind,  would  be  only 
repeating  a  trite  remark.  It  was  one  of  extraordinary 
compass  and  power.  His  rivals  and  compeers  were 
intellectual  giants,  and  among  them  he  occupied  no 
subordinate  position.  The  most  prominent  character 
istics  of  his  mind  were  its  massiveness  and  solidity,  its 
breadth  and  scope,  the  clearness  of  its  perceptions,  and 
the  directness  with  which  they  were  expressed.  It  was 
well-balanced,  because  it  was  self-poised,  and  he  did 
not  often  "o'erstep  the  modesty  of  nature." 

He  was  neither  znetaphysical  nor  subtle,  in  the  sense 
in  which  mere  schoolmen  use  those  terms.  He  had 
studied  the  philosophy  as  well  as  the  rules  of  logic  ;  or, 
if  not  that,  the  faculty  of  reasoning  with  accuracy  was 
natural  to  him.  He  was  capable  of  generalizing  and  of 
drawing  nice  distinctions.  He  was  shrewd  in  argument, 
and  quick  to  observe  the  weak  points  of  an  antagonist. 
Of  dialectics  he  was  a  complete  master,  whether  syn 
thetically  or  analytically  considered.  But  his  great 
power  lay  in  analysis.  He  could  resolve  a  complex 
argument  or  an  idea  into  its  original  parts,  with  as  much 
facility  as  the  most  expert  mechanic  could  take  a  watch 
in  pieces ;  and  it  was  his  very  exquisiteness  in  this  re 
spect,  that  caused  him  to  be  regarded  by  many  as  so 
phistical  and  metaphysical. 

He  was  fond  of  tracing  out  the  causes  which  led  to 
an  effect,  and  of  considering  the  vast  combinations  of 
circumstances  that  produced  a  certain  result,  or  what 
in  politics,  he  called  a  juncture  or  a  crisis.  In  the  readi 
ness  and  rapidity  with  which  he  analyzed  and  classified 
his  thoughts,  he  had  no  superior,  if  he  had  an  equal, 
among  the  public  men  of  his  day.  While  at  the  law 


450  JOHN    CALDVVELi,    CALflOUW.  [1850, 

school  in  Litchfield,  he  accustomed  himself  to  arrange 
the  order  of  his  thoughts,  before  taking  part  in  a  debate, 
not  upon  paper  but  in  his  mind,  and  to  depend  on  his 
memory,  which  was  peculiarly  retentive.  In  this  man 
ner  both  his  mind  and  memory  were  strengthened,  and 
the  former  was  made  to  resemble  a  store-house  full  to 
overflowing,  but  with  everything  in  its  appropriate 
place  and  ready  for  any  occasion. 

Like  his  life,  his  style  was  simple  and  pure,  yet,  for 
this  very  reason,  often  rising  to  an  elevation  of  grandeur 
and  dignity,  which  elaborate  finish  can  never  attain. 
It  was  modelled  aftw  the  ancient  classics,  and  distin 
guished  for  its  clearness,  directness,  and  energetic  earn 
estness.  His  words  were  well  chosen,  and  showed 
severe  discipline  in  his  early  studies ;  but  he  never 
stopped  to  pick  or  cull  them  in  the  midst  of  a  speech, 
for  at  such  times  his  ideas  seemed  to  come  forth  full 
draperied,  like  Minerva  from  the  brain  of  Jupiter.  He 
occasionally  made  use  of  a  startling  figure,  or  an  anti 
thetical  expression,  but  there  was  no  redundancy  of  or 
nament,  though — if  that  could  be  a  blemish — there  was 
a  redundancy  of  thought. 

He  was  in  the  habit  of  laying  down  a  few  simple  ab 
stract  truths,  and  arguing  upon  and  explaining  and 
elucidating  them.  Almost  every  sentence,  therefore, 
in  one  of  his  speeches,  was  a  political  text ;  and  the 
arguments  and  illustrations  which  he  employed  to  es 
tablish  the  correctness  of  his  great  principles  were  the 
clippings  of  the  diamond — scintillations  of  the  brilliant 
thought  from  which  they  emanated. 

His  speeches,  letters,  and  reports  would  fill  volumes ; 
yet  they  are  well  worthy  of  collection  in  a  permanent 


1850.]  MANNER    A3    AN    ORATOR.  451 

form.  They  contain  a  vast  fund  of  information  with 
reference  to  the  political  history  of  the  country,  and 
mines  of  thought  on  political  science.  For  some  years 
previous  to  his  death,  he  was  engaged  on  a  work  in 
three  parts,  entitled  "  The  Theory  of  Governments." 
The  first  part  was  completed  early  in  1849,  and  the 
two  remaining  parts  were  nearly  finished  at  the  time 
of  his  decease. 

It  has  been  said  that  he  was  no  orator.  It  is  true 
that  he  did  not  cultivate  the  graces  of  oratory,  but  he 
wielded  its  power  with  a  giant's  force.  In  discussing 
serious  questions,  he  was  usually  calm  though  impres 
sive  ;  and  when  he  first  rose  to  speak,  he  almost  always 
bent  forward  as  if  from  diffidence.  But  when  fully 
aroused,  he  became  stern  and  erect  in  his  bearing,  his 
voice  rang  loud  and  shrill,  and  his  eyes  glistened  like 
coals  of  fire.  A  steady  flow  of  words  came  from  his 
lips,  and  sometimes  they  rushed  so  rapidly  that  he 
seemed  obliged  to  clip  them  off  to  make  room.  In 
tense  earnestness  characterized  his  delivery,  and  this 
is  one  of  the  highest  attributes  of  true  eloquence.  In 
listening  to  him  you  felt  that  he  was  sincere,  and  it  was 
impossible  to  look  at  him  without  being  moved. 

As  a  statesman,  his  course  was  independent  and  high- 
minded.  Principles  he  regarded  as  practical  things, 
and  he  was  firm  in  adhering  to  them,  and  bold  and 
fearless  in  attacking  error.  He  united  the  fiery  ardor 
of  Mirabeau  to  the  steadiness  of  Malesherbes — the 
daring  of  Cunning  to  the  moderation  of  Liverpool. 
Few  men  possessed  a  more  happy  faculty  of  ingratiating 
themselves  into  the  favor  oi  new  acquaintances ;  but 
he  never  practiced  the  arts  of  the  demagogue,  and,  as 


452  JOHN    CALDWELL    CALHOUN.  [1850. 

he  used  to  say,  he  was  "  an  object  of  as  great  curiosity 
to  people  outside  of  a  circle  of  five  miles  in  this  state 
[South  Carolina],  as  anywhere  else."  He  was  ambi 
tious,  but  his  ambition  was  of  a  lofty  character.  He 
was  not  indifferent  to  party  obligations,  but  he  thought 
they  ought  to  be  limited  to  matters  of  detail  and  rninoi 
questions  of  policy,  and  not  extended  to  important 
principles. 

He  was  no  mere  theorist.  He  never  desired,  as  we 
have  seen  in  his  course  in  regard  to  the  currency  and 
the  tariff,  to  suddenly  undo  a  system  of  bad  measures, 
and  adopt  an  opposite  system.  He  favored  gradual 
changes,  and  this  is  high  evidence  of  the  practical  char 
acter  of  his  mind.  He  lived,  too,  to  behold  the  triumph 
of  most  of  the  great  principles  for  which  he  had  con 
tended,  and  this  is  a  proof  of  anything  but  an  overween 
ing  love  for  theories  and  abstractions. 

The  theory  of  this  government  was  for  many  years 
his  study ;  he  was  perfectly  familiar  with  our  foreign 
relations  ;  but  upon  the  currency  question  he  was  espe 
cially  at  home,  and  he  discussed  it  with  the  sagacity  of 
a  philosopher,  the  foresight  of  a  statesman,  and  the  prac 
tical  skill  of  a  financier. 

Independence  and  integrity  were  conspicuous  traits 
in  Mr.  Calhoun.  "I  never  know,"  he  said,  ''what 
South  Carolina  thinks  of  a  measure.  I  never  consult 
her.  I  act  to  the  best  of  my  judgment,  and  according 
to  my  conscience.  If  she  approves,  well  and  good.  If 
she  does  not,  or  wishes  any  one  else  to  take  my  place, 
I  am  ready  to  vacate.  We  are  even."  He  was  no 
friend  to  progressive  democracy,  nor  did  he  think  that 
liberty  and  licentiousness  were  synonymous  terms. 


1850.)  MEMORY.  453 

"  People  do  not  understand  liberty  or  majorities,"  he  re 
marked.  "  The  will  of  a  majority  is  the  will  of  a  rabble. 
Progressive  democracy  is  incompatible  with  liberty. 
Those  who  study  after  this  fashion  are  yet  in  the  horn 
book,  the  «,  b,  c,  of  governments.  Democracy  is  level 
ling — this  is  inconsistent  with  true  liberty.  Anarchy  is 
more  to  be  dreaded  than  despotic  power.  It  is  the 
worst  tyranny.  The  best  government  is  that  which 
draws  least  from  the  people,  and  is  scarcely  felt,  except 
to  execute  justice,  and  to  protect  the  people  from  animal 
violation  of  law." 

These  opinions  undoubtedly  indicate  the  existence  of 
a  morbid  melancholy  in  the  breast  of  their  author — of  a 
proneness  to  look  upon  the  dark  side  of  human  nature 
—yet  they  were  uttered  in  all  sincerity. 

Possessing  such  exalted  talents,  the  question  may  be 
asked,  why  Mr.  Calhoun  did  not  reach  the  presidency  ; 
lor  his  aspirations  were  often  turned  in  that  direction, 
though  he  would  sacrifice  no  principle  to  reach  that 
high  station.  A  late  writer"  has  enumerated  three 
obstacles — his  unconquerable  independence,  his  incor 
ruptible  integrity,  and  the  philosophical  sublimity  of  his 
genius.  That  the  first  two  contributed  to  this  result  is 
highiv  probable,  but  if  by  that  other  quality  is  meant 
an  elevation  of  his  genius  entirely  above  the  compre 
hension  of  the  multitude,  it  is  unjust  to  his  character. 
He  possessed  no  such  transcendental  faculty  or  attri 
bute.  Truth,  in  its  simplicity  and  beauty — as  Mr. 
Calhoun  presented  it — goes  home  to  every  heart.  He 
was  understood  and  appreciated  by  the  masses.  He 
was  popular  with  the  people,  but  not  with  the  politicians. 

*  Gallery  of  Illustrious  Americans,  No.  2. 


454  JOHN  CALDWKU  CALHOUN.         [1850. 

The  death  of  Mr.  Calhoun  was  a  loss  to  the  Union* 
but  to  South  Carolina  the  blow  was  peculiarly  severe. 
For  more  than  forty  years  she  had  trusted  and  confided 
in  him,  and  she  never  found  him  faithless  or  remiss  in 
his  duty.  He  had  received  many  honors  at  her  hands, 
but  not  one  was  undeserved, — she  owed  him  a  debt  of 
gratitude  which  she  could  never  repay.  She  has  pro 
duced  many  distinguished  men  ;  yet  his  memory  and 
fame  will  be  dearer  than  those  of  her  Laurenses,  hei 
Gadsdens,  her  Pinckneys,  her  Rutledges,  or  her  Haynes. 
Her  soil  contains  no  nobler  dust  than  that  of  JOHN 
CALDWELL  CALHOUN. 

"  Statesman,  yet  friend  to  truth ! — of  soul  sincere, 
In  action  faithful,  and  in  honor  clear, 
Who  broke  no  promise,  served  no  private  end, 
Who  sought  no  title,  and  who  lost  no  friend  1" 


THE    END. 


Popular  Work  1      Twelfth  Thousand  Now  Beady ! 

LEWIE,  OR  THlTBENDED  TWIG. 

BY  COUSIN  CICELY, 

Author  of  "  Silver  Lake  Stories,"  etc.,  etc. 

Otae  Volume  12mo.,       -       ....       Price"  f  1.00 

BEABDSLEY,  Auburn  and  Rochester  ,  H.  7 

Publishei 

"  Mother !  thy  gentle  hand  hath  mighty  power, 
For  thou  alone  may'st  train,  and  guide,  and  mould 
Plants  that  shall  blossom,  with  an  odor  sweet, 
Or.  like  the  cursed  fig-tree,  wither,  and  become 
Vile  cumberers  of  the  ground." 

Brief  Extracts  from  Notices  of  the  Press, 

*  •    «    A  tale  which  deserves  to  rank  with  "The  Wide,  Wide  World." 
It  is  written  with  graphic  power,  and  full  of  interest. — Hartford  Rrpub, 

*  *    *    Her  writings  are  equal  to  the  best.    She  is  a  second  Fanny 
Fern— Palmyra  Democrat. 

*  *    *    It  is  recommended  by  its  excellent  moral  tone  and  its  whole 
some  practical  inculcations  —N.  Y.  Tribune. 

*  *    »    Full  of  grace  and  charm,  its  style  and  vivacity  make  it  a  toort 
amusing  work.    For  the  intellectual  and  thinking,  it  has  a  deeper  lesson, 
and  while  it  thrills  the  heart,  bids  parents  beware  of  that  weakness  which 
prepares  in  infancy  the  misery  of  man.    "  Lewie  "  is  one  of  the  most  pop 
ular  books  now  before  the  public,  and  needs  no  puffing,  as  it  is  selling  by 
thousands.— JV.  Y.  Day  Book. 

*  *    •    The  moral  of  the  book  is  inestimable.    The  writer  cannot 
fail  to  be  good,  as  she  so  faithfully  portrays  the  evils  which  owe  their  ori 
gin  to  the  criminal  neglect  of  proper  parental  discipline. — Hunt'*  Mer 
chant*'  Magazine. 

*  •    *    The  plot  is  full  of  dramatic  interest,  yet  entirely  free  from 
extravagance ;  the  incidents  grow  out  of  the  main  plot  easily  and  natural 
ly,  while  the  sentiment  is  healthy  and  unaffected.    Commend  us  to  more 
writers  like  Cousin  Cicely — books  which  we  can  see  in  the  hands  of  our 
young  people  without  uneasiness.     Books  which  interest  by  picturing  life 
is  it  is,  instead  of  giving  us  galvanized  society. — National  Democrat. 

*  *    *    A  touching  and  impressive  story  unaffected  in  style  and  ef 
fective  in  plot.— N.  Y.  Evangelist. 

*  *    *    The  story  of  the  Governess,  contained  in  this  volume,  is  one 
of  rare  interest. — Highland  Eagle. 

*  *    *    The  story  is  a  charming  one — the  most  affecting  we  evei 
read Jersey  Shore  Republican. 

*  •    *    "Cousin  Cicely"  is  just  the  person  to  portray  family  scenes. 
•    •    •    This  story  will  be  profitable  reading.— Daily  Capital  City  Fact 
Columbus,  Ohio. 

*  *    *    The  contents  of  the  work  are  of  the  first  order,  and  unexcep 
tionable,— Hartford  Dotty  Time*.- 


*  *    *    Let  evetr  youth  peruse  i».  and  we  promise  tnem  they  wiH 
find  their  hearts  and  lives  improved  by  it. — Advocate,  Batavia. 

Truth  is  the  basis  of  the  work  before  us.  In  it  the  accomplished  au 
thoress  has  done  an  honor  to  her  sex,  and  we  doubt  not  secured  blessings 
upon  many  households  by  the  publication  of  this  finished  and  elegant  lit 
tle  volume.  Her  former  labors  have  endeared  her  to  children.  The 
present  one  should  secure  for  her  the  affection  and  gratitude  of  parent*.— 
<fenfva  Courier. 

*  *    *    It  is  lively  without  triviality,  and  replete  with  interest  from 
the  first  to  the  last.— New  York  Day  Book. 

*  *    *    Believing  this  work  adapted  to  lead  mothers  to  rightly  tratr 
the  little  shoots  springing  up  around  the  parent  tree,  and  to  restrain  theii 
wandering  inclinations,  we  commend  it  to  their  perusal. — Student. 

Cousin  Cicely  is  gifted  with  rare  powers.  It  is  of  home  incidents  sh« 
writes,  and  in  a  manner  highly  attractive.  *  *  *  Traces  with  graphU 
force  the  loved  and  petted  child.  The  volume  is  full  of  instruction  t« 
parents,  and  should  have  a  place  in  every  family  library  — Providence 
Daily  Post. 

*  *    *    Cousin  Cicely  is  well  known  and  a  work  from  her  pen  will 
meet  with  ready  welcome. — Providence  t^ttily  Times. 

*  *    *    Her  works  are  of  decided  merit,  and  should  be  possessed  by 
all. — Rochester  Daily  American. 

*  *    *     She  has  got  the  hearts  of  parents  and  children  tnrough  the 
Silver  Lake  Stories  and  Lewie. — Rodiester  Vaily  Democrat. 

*  *    *    The  moral  of  the  story  is  good,  and  the  plot  is  so  touching, 
that  we  cannot  wonder  at  the  book's  success.- — JM.  Y.  Commercial  Adv. 

*  *    *    Agnes,  the  sister  of  spoiled  Lewie,  i#  treated  with  uumotherly 
injustice  ;  grows  up  a  character  of  uncommon    oveliness ;  and,  though 
"only  a  Governess/7  marries  splendidly. — N.  Y   Church  Journal. 

*  *    *     Downright  interesting  story.     It  if  crowded   with  domestic 
pictures,  true  to  nature.     *     *    *     The  short  «uid  melancholy  career  ol 
poor  Lewie,  shows  the  importance  of  properly  mauling  children. —  \Va- 
tern  Literary  Messenger. 

*  *    *    The  description  of  an  American  horns  i«  Mie  to  the  life.     Ma 
ny  of  the  incidents  are  truly  affecting.     *     *    *     Pass  Ages  of  remarkable 
beauty  of  expression  and  sentiment.     We  give  the  following  as  a  speci 
men  of  the  thought  and  style  which  characterizes  the  work  ;  "It  is  strange 
how  much  a  human  heart  may  suffer  and  beat  on  and  reg\in   tranquility, 
and  even  cheerfulness  at  last.     It  is  a  most  merciful  pron>s;on  of  Provi 
dence,  that  our  griefs  do  not  always  fall  as  heavily  as  they  do  at  first,  else 
how  could  the  burden  of  this  life  of  change  and  sorrow  be  borne.     But 
the  loved  ones  are  not  fo-gotton  when  the  tear  is  dried,  and  tLe  smile  re 
turns  to  the  cheek;  they  are  remembered,  but  with  less  of  sadness  and 
gloom  in  the  remembrance;  and  at  length,  if  we  can  think  o^th^m  aa 
nappy,  it  is  onlv  a  pleasure  to  recall   them  to  mind.'7 — Patriot, 
Michigan. 


RETURN  TO:      CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 
198  Main  Stacks 


LOAN  PERIOD     1 
Home  Use 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS. 

Renewals  and  Recharges  may  be  made  4  days  prior  to  the  due  date. 
Books  may  be  renewed  by  calling  642-3405. 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW. 


-  ,  j 

fllAW     7 

Hffi  1  o  200 

7 

FORM  NO.  DD6                        UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
50M                                          Berkeley,  California  94720-6000 

GENERAL  LIBRARY- u.C.  BERKELEY 


BOOO«OU33 


